[ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] GNSO Council: Ignoring the public, again
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=D8Y66gQKeihZU6kP+yRGY7iW1uNI3cJgYz+FdiI8jYVFQvbQccAOuUsCC/7GkptGgKP4WNB5ja1UCtIyplT2JNpPuql/2RRTQr3FgIeG8dzAOM5ATUe0ojTB/5+aPMUD/UoC9CQYVgFRJGWx/TlOqbYiJShdpooHl77uLuSDY+g=;
- In-reply-to: <DEBACA4F-8E3F-4DF3-8013-798C9EF7FE07@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.