ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 06:22:56 +0200


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.


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


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

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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>