Thanks Liz for these thoughts. It is hard for me to imagine anyone complaining if 'pre-defined requirements for conducting public comments' are simply extended to provide greater time. I echo the concerns about the 3x-yearly document drop on Councilors. But I am more concerned to keep moving forward on policy development rather than focusing such immense amounts of time on restructure and process. Policy development is our primary job, and the ICANN community and broader public expects it from us, in particular to help deal with immense harms enabled by abusive domain registrations. For many months there has been relatively little policy development discussion on Council, and a large imbalance towards process issues. This is frustrating for those of us elected and intending to push for policy development. We should spend at least an equal amount of time on policy development than on process, preferably the vast majority of our time, even during this big structural and procedural transition. Thanks, Mike _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:10 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Council resolution regarding extension of public comment periods All, The ICANN staff recognizes the intent behind this resolution and we will begin to think through any implications associated with this recommendation. As a threshold matter, it may be helpful to mention that many structures within ICANN have pre-defined requirements for conducting public comments, including the time frames required for soliciting public comment. These differ today by entity, many requirements are specified in various bylaws provisions applicable to various structures, including requirements applicable to Board-initiated solicitations for public comment. The current bylaws provisions applicable to GNSO Council-related solicitations for public comment are specific to the GNSO Council. Staff has also heard concerns from some Council members about the volume of reports and materials produced by ICANN staff (and possibly working group reports as well) just prior to and during ICANN meetings, because of the challenges associated with reviewing and being prepared to comment on late-breaking documents and reports. For example, staff was directed to complete the registration abuse issues report prior to the Cairo ICANN meeting specifically so that the report could be discussed in Cairo, but, understandably, many Council members were unable to read the report in time for a timely discussion. Thus, it may also be appropriate to consider whether deadlines for other deliverables should also be extended accordingly to further address Council member concerns. Staff looks forward to discussing all this further with Council members. Thanks, Liz