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

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.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.

If all the documents had been posted in time for at least a two 
week comments period, I might agree, even though the .BIZ issue is 
far from settled.  There are potentially literally thousands of 
businesses at stake. 

However, there is insufficient time to post them and have a 
reasonable period for public comment.  It will have been a hastily 
made decision once again, most of it having been done behind 
closed doors and answerable to whom?

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


--
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