Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

Thanks, Mike. I was asking the Board to state ahead of time what items might
be acted upon in Melbourne and to limit the action items to some discrete
set of issues that can be reviewed in the remaining time. You've said that
none of the items have been posted for action in Melbourne, but the
possibility that any of them might be acted upon Melbourne means that we are
required to read and comment upon them all.

As you probably know, I try very hard to follow these policy issues and,
when I think appropriate, make comments and suggestions. Like the vast
majority of those participating in these discussions, however, this is not
all I do. I simply see no way that I can review all of these documents
thoughtfully in the time provided given other responsibilities. I doubt I'm
alone in this. Some advance notice on what the Board might act upon in
Melbourne would help me, and I suspect others, prioritize the review.

On your last question, my personal belief is that a "reasonable opportunity
for comment" is nothing less than 30 days for most items. In an emergency,
the Board can and should take interim measures on less than 30 days notice,
with an appropriate request to the relevant Supporting Organization to
provide additional support and comment on final measures.

As to the matters I mentioned in my e-mail, here is what I recommend:

(a) The new TLD contracts should be the item pushed forward for public
comment and possible action by the Board in Melbourne. It is important to
push this forward so the testbed can get underway. Two weeks notice is
probably sufficient if this is the only item set for action.

(b) The discussion on multilingual domain names should be used as a fact
gathering exercise, and any problem areas identified should be referred to
the DNSO (for policy issues) and/or the PSO (for technical issues) for
review. 

(c) The Board should considering revising the contract with NSI to extend
the 18th month limitation on legal separation of the registry and registrar
by such time as necessary (4 months) to allow the more extensive
restructuring of the delegation to be addressed fully and completely in
Stockholm; and,

(d) No action or even public discussion should take place on the Ad Hoc
report, as I don't believe anyone has seen it yet.

My point though is that the community needs some guidance on the possible
actions for Melbourne. If anything is a possibility, then everything must be
reviewed. Thank you very much for your prompt response.

Very truly yours,

Bret

Mike Roberts wrote:

> Bret - someone with your long acquaintance with ICANN needs to look
> before you shoot.  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
>