RE: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique

["Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

You have my support with corrections added.

	    Saludos,

                Oscar A. Robles Garay
---------------------------------------------------------
Centro de Servicios de Informacion y Registro en Internet
   Direccion de Informatica    ITESM, Campus Monterrey
---------------------------------------------------------
   NIC-Mexico  Top Level Domain .MX  http://www.nic.mx
               Tel/Fax. +52(8)387-5346

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> good point (understaffed paragraph), Milton.
>
> And I am perfectly willing to have that part " and that ICANN is, in
> general, understaffed, " removed from the draft.
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 10:46 PM
> To: pdeblanc@usvi.net
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique
>
>
> Peter:
> This draft has my support.
>
> If I were to amend it, I would strike the statement that "ICANN is, in
> general, understaffed." I do not think it is, but whether or not you agree I
> don't see any logical connection between springing major policy decisions on
> us three days before travel and a lack of staffing. The staff seems to have
> plenty of time to do the things it wants to do.
>
>
> >>> "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> 03/11/01 13:54 PM >>>
> Philip, and NC
>
> Here is my draft. What procedure do we follow to get it approved by the
> council and forwarded to ICANN staff and Board?
>
> peter de Blanc
> -------------------------
>
> There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes out documents while
> constituents are in transit on the way to meetings. Examples include  GAC
> letter, status quo document, NSI-ICANN contract revision proposal, etc.
>
> This practice does not allow proper time for consultation and comment,
> particularly for non-native English speakers. Some colleagues have privately
> expressed a feeling that this practice may be deliberate, particularly since
> it seems to repeat itself at each physical meeting.
>
> While we can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not always allow
> for long lead times, and that ICANN is, in general, understaffed, the DNSO
> needs to address this issue in a pro-active manner.
>
> This communiqué from the NC to the ICANN staff may help to alleviate the
> frustration of the constituency members affected by this practice. We
> encourage the ICANN staff to manifest an increased level of sensitivity in
> this area in the future.
> ---------------------------
> (EOF)
>
>
>