Dear colleagues,
It appears that ICANN has seen the error
of their ways… The Public Forum that IS public after all: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:45
PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] GAC Advice
Public Comment - or not?
Dear colleagues,
So it appears that ICANN is once again entering into the
Theatre of the Absurd. First, Fadi states publicly in the post-Beijing
video that in a precedent-setting move, ICANN would put the GAC advice out to
public comment; then (perhaps recognizing the law of unintended consequences)
he does an about-face and notes the Public Comment will not include any public
comments… The public comment period that wasn’t?
If you haven’t seen the announcement, it is here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en
The president and staff have to recognize that these flip flopping,
stutter-stepping, inconsistencies are unacceptable to the community and to
governments. Trying to make up processes on the fly to ensure that the
deadlines for new gTLDs are hit is not part of the bottom up, consensus-driven
institution many in the community devote so much volunteer time in building.
For my part, we need to send that message back to Fadi.
Either it is an open Public Comment forum; or there is no Public Comment
at all, in my view. He can’t have it both ways… In essence,
what he is trying to do now is solely give affected applicants a chance to say
that shouldn’t be on the list because of x, y, or z. What about the
parties affected by, or objectors to, those applications? Don’t
they deserve – at the very least – equal time?
I do hope that we can find consensus on this matter within
the BC. We REALLY need to pull together on this and singular/plural
– both of which are absurd. Can we look to our Ex Com to take the
lead…?
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff