Bringing this thread back to its topic....
We are in the midst of a situation that is essentially an experiment -- a simultaneous Public Comment period and [first?] Chartering Organization review/support period. Unfortunately, we have some unspecified parameters, which is probably not good experimental design (unless this is really a social experiment).
In particular, the relationships among (i) the Chartering Organization review, (ii) the public comments generally, and (iii) possible public comments from members and sub-organizations of the Chartering Organizations are unspecified.
Indeed, the possibility (or not) of public comments from members/sub-organizations of Chartering Organizations was not fully resolved.
Focusing on this last point, there is more than one reasonable answer:
1. Public comments are completely open, and everybody participates as normal, including members and suborganizations of Chartering Organizations (COs).
2. As above, but comments from members and suborganizations of COs are significantly discounted, as their primary path for input should be their CO.
3. Public comments are not open to members or suborganizations of COs; their input is limited to the process within their CO.
Whichever route we choose, we should be consistent, rather than just letting things happen. To take an example within GNSO, what if (a) Stakeholder Group/Constituency (SG/C) A decides it is inappropriate for the SG/C or its members to participate in public comment and guides all input through the GNSO process, while (b) SG/C B decides it should not comment but its members are free to do so (and even encouraged to do so), and (c) SG/C C decides it is "business as usual." As a result, the public comments reflect (a) nothing from SG/C A, (b) no comments from SG/C B but a number of comments from its members, and (c) a comment from SG/C C (representing the consensus view of its membership) and a number of comments from its members. How do we evaluate that in the public comment period? Is SG/C A missing a big opportunity or is SG/C wasting everybody's time (including its own)? [Note: No one wants to waste time, and no one wants to miss an opportunity, so we are on the horns of a dilemma....]
Another problem is defining who falls into the category of those who should not (or must not) comment: All GAC members (does that extend to their government as such?); all ccNSO members (what about non-ccNSO ccTLDs?); all GNSO SG/Cs (but what about members of those SG/Cs, and what about members of their members?); All ALAC members (but what about RALOs and local structures and their members?); etc., etc. Where do we draw the line?
As long as we are all playing by the same rules, I'm happy to play by those rules. But if each group is going to make up their own rules, then I would want my constituency to make its views known anywhere they could be heard (and anywhere they are needed to support or disagree with the views of others similarly situated in the ICANN ecosystem).
Chartering Organization participants should not be in the position of having to make individual judgment calls about whether it is appropriate to make public comments. CCWG and staff should not be in the position of having to decide whether to discount certain public comments because they came from "inside" (especially since that is an ill-defined universe). We need a unified approach to this problem.
So what do we do?????
Greg