RE: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I would concur with Bret's position, especially to the extent that ICANN
constituents and the general public, as prompted by the inevitable media
coverage, _could_ hold these issues out as _evidence_ that ICANN is not
fulfilling its promise, or following its mission as expressed in the bylaws.

While I may not agree with the specific "action items" Bret proposes, I
would recommend that we (the NC) and ICANN staff find some compromise here.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Bret Fausett
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:14 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Cc: ga@dnso.org; touton@icann.org
Subject: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment


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