RE: [ga] Re: More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify what the Board decides, and what is left to staff to deal
with, the Board does deliberate in order to put a document forward for
public comments. This is exclusively to make sure that the Board is aware of
the contents of the document, that it does not contain affirmations that are
in conflict with Board statements, and so on.
Being this the purpose of the Board's involvment, it should be clear why a
mere extension of the comment period would not require a Board decision, as
the nature and purpose of the documents put forward for public comments does
not change.
You are about to see, or have just seen, other examples of extension of
public comment periods, see
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07oct09-en.htm. In this
latter case, I have been contacted by staff before releasing the
announcement, but simply because, being the Chair of the SIC, a change in
the deadline for comments will affect the planning of the committee's work.
I hope that this clarifies the matter.
Roberto
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Hasbrouck
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2009 20:52
> To: Maria Farrell
> Cc: Ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] Re: More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes 
> to Improve Accountability public comment period
> 
> 
> To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more 
> translated documents or the extension of a comment period to 
> meet the stated needs of the community."  Translation is an 
> ongoing issue, but I have not seen any such publicly stated 
> "need" with respect to this issue in particular, any more 
> than dozens or hundreds of other issues.
> 
> More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of 
> the decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal 
> properly made to the Board to open a second comment period, 
> but solely about the identity of the decision-maker and the 
> process and authority for their decision.
> 
> An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the 
> confusion of substantive and procedural issues, and the 
> erroneous assumption that a good-faith belief in the merits 
> of the outcome is sufficient to justify any defects in the 
> process by which that outcome was or is reached.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Edward Hasbrouck
> 
> On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell 
> <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Edward,
> > 
> > The decision to extend the comment period was taken with 
> the agreement 
> > of our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the 
> Office of the 
> > General Counsel since you believe this issue to be 
> primarily about legal authority.
> > 
> > I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the 
> provision 
> > of more translated documents or the extension of a comment 
> period to 
> > meet the stated needs of the community.
> > 
> > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
> > 
> > On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to 
> the Board 
> > for a second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost 
> > infinite number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to 
> which member 
> > of staff had this authority, and on what basis.  Could you 
> please send 
> > me the URL of the minutes of the Board decision delegating 
> to a member 
> > of the staff the authority to overrule the decision of the Board 
> > setting the comment period at 60 days, or of the provision of the 
> > Bylaws you believe gives that member of the staff the 
> authority to overrule such a Board decision?
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Edward Hasbrouck
> > 
> > On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell 
> > <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Edward,
> > >
> > > The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment 
> > > period has been extended by staff because translations of the 
> > > proposed bylaws were finalised too late to allow non-English 
> > > language users to participate fully in the consultation. The 
> > > translated versions will be posted this week in five other 
> > > languages, and a further two months of consultation time 
> allowed to 
> > > ensure everyone has the same chance to take part.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" 
> <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009:
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm
> > >
> > > "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this 
> > > proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 
> 27 October 
> > > 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and 
> > > submit their views."
> > >
> > > The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was 
> set by the Board:
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8
> > >
> > > "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, 
> including 
> > > the possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving 
> > > Institutional
> > > Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for 
> > > public comment:..."
> > >
> > > I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this 
> > > comment period, or delegating authority to do so.
> > >
> > > Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording 
> that vote?
> > >
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
> > > Edward Hasbrouck
> 
> 
> ----------------
> Edward Hasbrouck
> <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <http://hasbrouck.org>
> +1-415-824-0214
>