[ga] RE: Did .biz/info/org registries respond to public comments before October 10th?

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Vint. The Board might want to republicize the public comments
mailing list URLs (or create new mailing lists?) after they are posted,
so that the public can comment on the responses of the registries. 

This has been brought up before, but should ICANN consider capturing
and storing the email addresses of those who verify their public
comments, so that ICANN can post updates to those interested people via
email? This goes to the issues of outreach, public participation, and
the LSE report. Thousands of individual responses were received on
various issues in the past (WLS, SiteFinder, etc.), but the
communications were 1-way, and ICANN missed an opportunity to create a
dialogue and new long-term participants in ICANN. By posting email
updates to those people who already showed some initiative to submit
comments, to let them know what ICANN is doing, and inviting them to
continue to participate with future comments on the same issue, or even
in all issues via directions on joining one of the GNSO constituencies,
ICANN would be encouraging organic growth.

Doing the above is not rocket-science...just a bit of grunt work,
pushing a table of email addresses into a different database, and
creating opt-in/opt-out mechanisms. All that technology already exists
within existing ICANN systems, and just needs to be linked together.
Hopefully the public participation managers at ICANN don't waste this
opportunity.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> George, agenda should be out today. We have just received responses
> from
> some of the registries - I believe these will be posted also.
> 
> V
>  
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google
> Regus Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:52 AM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Did .biz/info/org registries respond to public comments
> before
> October 10th?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In the minutes of the last Board meeting, it was written that:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-25sep06.htm
> 
> "The Board discussed a "sense of the board" that additional
> information was
> required for the Board to fully consider the agreements, and the
> Board
> specifically expressed a desire to see communications from each of
> the
> registries responding to the public comments that had been received
> during
> the public comment period. The Board agreed that if they received the
> responses before October 10th, that they would discuss the pending
> agreements again during their next scheduled board meeting on 18
> October
> 2006."
> 
> It is now October 12th, and yet nothing has been posted by the
> registries
> either in the ICANN Correspondences page,
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ , or on the public comments
> mailing
> lists, http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm
> . 
> 
> Given that is now 6 days before the next Board meeting, and no agenda
> has
> yet been posted (the Bylaws specify that it is desirable to post an
> agenda 7
> days before, when practicable), is it right to assume that they did
> not
> submit comments? In my prior post at:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04840.html
> 
> I expressed the view that the public deserves to see their responses
> if they
> submitted them, in keeping with an open and transparent ICANN.
> 
> Alternatively, if the registries and ICANN Board plan to heed the
> call by
> the GNSO Council not to make any decision until after the Sao Paulo
> meeting:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02870.html
> 
> "To request the Board to delay any decision on the .biz .info and
> .org
> agreements until the ICANN Board meeting after the Sao Paolo ICANN
> meetings
> 2006 and to take into account the current outcome of the
> PDPFeb06 task force at that time."
> 
> and the registries plan to submit their responses by that meeting, I
> trust
> that the responses will be made available in advance of the Sao Paolo
> meetings.
> 
> If the registries were smart and have produced new draft contracts
> for
> discussion and public comments to reflect the obvious consensus
> opposition
> to the existing draft contracts, that would be even better.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
>