[ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

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



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html