As I understand the proposed meeting agenda, it has two topics: The .com renewal policy issues and progressing work on those, if a PDP is approved And advancing work on the existing gTLD policy Development process. I would like for the first item to be a priority, given the timing issues related to the board decision process. I've so far only seen discussion that makes it look like the purpose is the new gTLD policy. When this meeting was proposed it was focused on the .com policy issues. I know we are expecting the Issues Report on that topic very shortly and will vote on it next Monday. By now all have undoubtedly seen that the ICANN staff have posted an update /new draft of the .com renewal/litigation settlement agreement for public comment. Regards, Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:54 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Regarding public comment processes Hello Mawaki,
i) if we are to make progress on the issues to be discussed (which means we will be making decisions), I was concerned that we may get into negotiations of some kind with live participants, and the live inputs may lock some options/decisions at the expenses of some other. Which, from what you're saying, shouldn't be the case.
No. The work on issues would be undertaken by the committee. The public comment process would be conducted as part of the normal public comment processes as part of the PDP. In the past few physical GNSO Council meetings we have offered the opportunity for public comment on any issues currently before the Council - this is just being consistent with that recent practice. It restores a process that used to occur in the "General Assembly" portion of ICANN meetings.
ii) Second, and maybe most importantly, is it okay to decide upon a public consultation meeting between two conference calls, or is this a policy, or if you will, a "rules and regulations" kind of requirement we need to advise and advertise well in advance for all to be aware of?
The option to hold the physical meeting is on the agenda for the meeting on 6 Feb 2006. The proposal to attempt a face-to-face meeting to advance our work was included in the draft agenda for the Council meeting posted on 20 Jan 2006. The discussion on the mailing list is an attempt to develop a proposal that has sufficient detail (dates/location/content) to allow the Council to make a decision whether to go ahead in its meeting on 6 Feb 2006. I have been reading carefully the various comments and have tried to select a date/location that is a reasonable compromise amongst the various constraints of Council members. Regards, Bruce Tonkin