about the CCWG 30-day comment period
Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period. Hi everyone, We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship. Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53. The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695 Warm regards, Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs
So, now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable. Outrageously unacceptable and objected to. I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG. rl -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote:
Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period.
Hi everyone,
We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53.
The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
So since this is about accountability, it strikes me that the two ICANN staff who agreed to a shorter public comment period should be named. I also think one of them should always be the Manager of Public Participation since that is their job. This is pretty obvious and useful accountability. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
So, now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable. Outrageously unacceptable and objected to. I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG. rl -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote:
Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period.
Hi everyone,
We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53.
The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think it would be worth holding the public comment forum itself open up to and including Buenos Aires - but just note that the deadline applies with respect to responding to any of the comments in time for the Buenos Aires meeting. I would expect for example that we are unlikely to get GAC feedback until after their meeting in Buenos Aires. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 6:41 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] about the CCWG 30-day comment period Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period. Hi everyone, We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship. Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53. The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695 Warm regards, Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs
The public comment forum typically stays open for a while afterwards, as far as I can tell (indeed, I'm not sure when they are closed, thought they may not get checked after a while. Greg On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
I think it would be worth holding the public comment forum itself open up to and including Buenos Aires - but just note that the deadline applies with respect to responding to any of the comments in time for the Buenos Aires meeting.
I would expect for example that we are unlikely to get GAC feedback until after their meeting in Buenos Aires.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 6:41 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day public comment period.
Hi everyone,
We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April. The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days, which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53 when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first public comment and during ICANN53.
The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first) Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department would not depart from the standard default time period without broader senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are available on the public wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
Warm regards,
Thomas, Leon and Mathieu CCWG co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Adam Peake -
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Kieren McCarthy