Hello Mawaki, I thank you for effectively raising the concerns being expressed within the NCUC.
1/ Given this particular and sensitive issue of gTLD, which has been on and on for a good while, we have heard the same arguments for and against gTLDs for years, and what is most needed is not more comment, but decisions (at least on positions and recommendations, as far as the GNSO Council is concerned). The idea that we, the Council and our Constituencies, don't know what our position is, or need to hear more, does not convince none of my constituents. Instead, it is beleived that what we really need to do is to put our heads together and come up with a common and final position.
It does surprise me to hear that we should be limiting public input to one mechanism - online comments to the website, especially when this has not really been found to be adequate over the past several years. It is also concerning that we should be saying that we don't want to listen to people because we have already made up our minds.
2/ And to better achieve this, we need not to expose ourselves to further pressure and lobbying from interest groups, which my fellow constituents beleive is going to happen in D.C. In effect, we are concerned that opening this meeting in Washington to public comment turn this into lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by Washington insiders who are far to reflect the variety of possible and existing positions on this sensitive issue of value to all of us, both as ICANN bodies and globally.
Remember that it is the Council that makes its recommendations to the Board. This seems to be implying that you are concerned that Council members are not sufficiently experienced to judge input based on its merits rather than its source (ie inferring that the Council would consider a comment made in Washington on a higher basis simply because of the location where the comment was made). The mere fact that this issue is of concern to members of the NCUC - would imply that the NCUC Concil members will be vigilant to ensure that all input is treated appropriately based on its merit rather than who has submitted it or where it is submitted. It seems however that in the Council teleconference we may need to separate the decision on a public comment forum, from the core objective which is to make progress on the policy work. The decisions that need to be made seem to be in order: (1) should we hold a physical meeting between now and Wellington to move things forward on policy efficiently (2) if so, where and when (3) if we hold a physical meeting, should we offer the oppportunity for oral public comments Regards, Bruce Tonkin