Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

[Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>]

Milton,

I use subject lines of my e-mails to help the reader understand what the
message is about, not to convey the entire message.  If you will go back
to my message and read its text, you will see that it clearly says:

   * The topic "will be discussed at the 12 March 2001 Public
     Forum in Melbourne" (not the 13 March Board meeting where 
     action is taken) 

   * "The Board expects to consider the matter at Melbourne, but 
     to take action on this topic in the weeks after the Melbourne 
     meeting."

I hope that this clears up your confusion.  ICANN meetings have many
parts, including constituency meetings, supporting organization
meetings, advisory committee meetings, the public forum, and the board
meeting.  The reason my messate referred to an "Additional Melbourne
Meeting Topic" is simply because it is indeed an additional Melbourne
meeting topic.  The text of my message clearly states that Board action
would be **after** the Melbourne meeting.

Louis 


Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> Mike, if you are correct I am relieved.
> 
> Now will you explain to me why Louis Touton's message informing us of the Verisign/ORG agreement was entitled "Additional Melbourne meeting topics." ???
> 
> >>> Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org> 03/01/01 02:26PM >>>
> None, repeat none, of the items you cite has been
> posted for action in Melbourne.  In fact, it would be useful for you and others to comment on how the Board can best balance the many demands it receives for timely action with the need for "Reasonable
> Opportunity for Comment."
> 
> - Mike
> 
> At 11:13 -0800 3/1/01, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >To Members of the Names Council:
> >
> >With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
> >now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
> >comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
> >which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
> >multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
> >agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
> >Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
> >report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
> >of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
> >form.
> >
> >Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
> >that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
> >parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
> >opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
> >only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
> >opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
> >I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
> >the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
> >opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.
> >
> >If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
> >30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
> >"reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
> >however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
> >meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
> >The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
> >two weeks of consultation.
> >
> >To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
> >the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
> >(other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
> >rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
> >Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
> >Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
> >Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
> >focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
> >afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
> >guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
> >not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
> >review.
> >
> >Thank you for considering this request.
> >
> >Very truly yours,
> >
> >Bret A. Fausett