[ga] Re: GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not believe that the comments were ignored.
The review of the public comments was done by Liz
before we started walking though the the Principles
and Recommendations.   They were also brought up
specifically in line during the conversations on
the principles and recommendations.

Additionally I believe they were read by the members
of the council, personally I know I read them.  I
also beleive that they motivated many of the comments
made by individual memebrs of the council in their
remarks during the discussions of each point.

The comments will be also be included in the Board
report and I believe they will be read by the Board,
or at least many on the board, before they vote.

It is true that none of the recommendations was
changed based on the comments.  I think the comments
at the end of the process  are more useful for affecting
the vote and the implementation then they are for
changing the recommendations themselves.  I think the
comments that have been collected earlier have more to
do shaping recommendations.  this may be something that
needs to be in the continuing review and
reform of the GNSO process

So, while the comments did not serve as a veto on any
of the recommendations, I do believe they were heard.
I know that personally, I read them and they affected
my thinking on various points.  In the end I decdied
to vote for the recommendations, but my personal
considerations included consideration of the comments.

thanks
a.


On 7 sep 2007, at 03.14, Danny Younger wrote:

> Avri,
>
> Having listened to the entirety of today's GNSO
> Council session, allow me to express my disappointment
> at your failure to properly review the 81 public
> comments tendered on the topic of new gTLDs.
>
> Your agenda called for a review of the topic, followed
> by a review of the public comments, followed by a
> review of staff notes and topic culmination in a vote.
>
>
> After you discussed the principles, recommendations
> and aspects of implementation (which concluded at one
> hour and twenty-two minutes into the session) you went
> directly to the vote and totally bypassed the agenda
> segment that called for a review of the public
> comments.
>
> The entire point of having a public comment session is
> to allow for the possibility of corrections --  you
> did not allow for the benefit of public imput to
> properly accrue and instead the Council voted on the
> sum of the recommendations as a package.
>
> If this was going to be a thumbs up or thumbs down
> proposition, then why did you even bother to ask for
> public comments?  If there was no intent on the part
> of the Council to modify, amend or correct any
> language in response to public input, then why are we
> being put through this charade of participation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket:  
> mail, news, photos & more.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC