RE: [council] ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Yes, the Council passed the following motion in Cairo -- 

Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Zahid Jamil and Kristina Rosette proposed a motion 
on the extension of Public Comment Periods during ICANN meetings

Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors and 
many other GNSO participants.
Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant interest 
to many GNSO Councilors and participants.
Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many members 
of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with members of 
their Constituency and/or member organization(s).

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any 
public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN 
meeting.
Motion passed with one abstention from Adrian Kinderis (two votes)

Policy Staff have been mindful of this practice for comment forums that we are 
coordinating directly and we do recognize the challenge this can present.  We 
will again convey your concerns and urge that, especially with the large amount 
of work underway, adjustments should be made wherever possible.

Thanks, Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 4:52 AM
To: Council GNSO
Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul



On 7 Oct 2009, at 07:25, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Alan,
>
> You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a
> request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and  
> reports
> that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before  
> each ICANN
> meeting.

>
> I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN  
> staff are
> operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of  
> documents
> and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult  
> for the
> community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of  
> reports are
> published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for  
> people
> to process and give them the attention they deserve.
>
> If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the  
> load a
> little, I'm sure that would help.

That is, unfortunately the way with deadlines.  Once the deadline for  
docs was made for 2 weeks before the meeting, most all efforts  
scheduled back from that date.

I would note that it is a sign of how important the IDN Fast Track  
decision is that this document came out earlier.  But with much of the  
same team working on both Fast Track and DAG, one really did have to  
come first.

>
>
> Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the  
> comment
> periods.
>

In terms of the request, I believe we did have a council resolution  
making this request formally a while back, so I hope the renewed  
request is seen as coming from the entire council.


a.


> Stéphane
>
>
>
>
> Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> a  
> écrit :
>
>>
>> In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the
>> ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback
>> by the number and importance of ICANN comment
>> periods that had just opened in the last several
>> days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
>>
>> Posted 01 Oct,  Due 01 Nov,   Expedited Registry Security Request  
>> (ERSR)
>> Posted 02 Oct,  Due 06 Nov,   Domain Names
>> Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service
>> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   NomCom Review - Draft Working Group  
>> Report
>> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   SSAC Review - Draft Working Group  
>> Report
>> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   Board Review - Draft Final Working  
>> Group Report
>>
>> Although we seemed to recall that a commitment
>> had been made to not "count" the time during an
>> ICANN meeting against one month comment periods,
>> that is clearly not being done here. For the
>> Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business
>> days in transit or at the meeting, significantly
>> cutting into the time available to comment.
>>
>> And we noted that although all of these topics
>> are quite important, only the ERSR one could
>> really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
>>
>> The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension
>> on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may
>> wish to consider a similar move.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>