Deadline for Public Comment
(sorry if you are reading this twice - I sent a similar message much earlier today, but the note hasn't appeared on the Council list - I'm assuming that either a) my mailer completely ate the earlier message and it in fact did not go out, b) I got caught in a spam trap somewhere along the way, or c) I'm going crazy.) I've just peeked into the public comment archive for the PDP-Dec05 and noticed that we don't really have any meaty submissions. Given that we had a large number of substantive submissions in the last round, I think it might be worthwhile to extended the comment period for another 7 to 14 days, reiterate a call for public comments and also underscore the request for comments to each of our constituencies. I find it hard to believe that the community has no input regarding this latest call for comments. -ross
Perhaps the community is suffering "fatique" in preparation for the upcoming meeting. :-) Good idea to extend the comment period and republicize BUT we have several contributions via the white papers that were contributed, right? Regards, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:09:20 To:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Deadline for Public Comment (sorry if you are reading this twice - I sent a similar message much earlier today, but the note hasn't appeared on the Council list - I'm assuming that either a) my mailer completely ate the earlier message and it in fact did not go out, b) I got caught in a spam trap somewhere along the way, or c) I'm going crazy.) I've just peeked into the public comment archive for the PDP-Dec05 and noticed that we don't really have any meaty submissions. Given that we had a large number of substantive submissions in the last round, I think it might be worthwhile to extended the comment period for another 7 to 14 days, reiterate a call for public comments and also underscore the request for comments to each of our constituencies. I find it hard to believe that the community has no input regarding this latest call for comments. -ross
Marilyn I think you're right -- and they're about to be more fatigued with Wellington. I suggest that we leave the public comment forum open but that, for the purposes of capturing input for the next version of the Initial Report (which will go out today) we deal only with what has been received by the deadline. To confirm, we have many contributions via the call for papers and also through the public comment archive. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob On 14 Mar 2006, at 05:42, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Perhaps the community is suffering "fatique" in preparation for the upcoming meeting. :-)
Good idea to extend the comment period and republicize BUT we have several contributions via the white papers that were contributed, right? Regards, Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:09:20 To:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Deadline for Public Comment
(sorry if you are reading this twice - I sent a similar message much earlier today, but the note hasn't appeared on the Council list - I'm assuming that either a) my mailer completely ate the earlier message and it in fact did not go out, b) I got caught in a spam trap somewhere along the way, or c) I'm going crazy.)
I've just peeked into the public comment archive for the PDP-Dec05 and noticed that we don't really have any meaty submissions. Given that we had a large number of substantive submissions in the last round, I think it might be worthwhile to extended the comment period for another 7 to 14 days, reiterate a call for public comments and also underscore the request for comments to each of our constituencies.
I find it hard to believe that the community has no input regarding this latest call for comments.
-ross
Marilyn Cade wrote:
Perhaps the community is suffering "fatique" in preparation for the upcoming meeting. :-)
Were the community at large actually involved in planning for the meeting I might agree :) I think its more likely that we haven't done an adequate job clearly identifying what we are looking for comment on. The links from the web page don't clearly indicate what the committee is requesting input on (although insiders can narrow down the options - comment on the report, comment on the previous submissions, comment on all) and I'm not able to locate any announcement via email indicating that a public comment period was opened and what the committee is requesting input on. Although some constituency level outreach may have occurred, I don't many indications that we successfully got a clear message out to the ICANN and larger community.
Good idea to extend the comment period and republicize BUT we have several contributions via the white papers that were contributed, right?
Yes - but all of those submissions were made in response to the earlier calls for papers - not in response to the most recent call for comments. Related to the most recent call, we received 35 comments via email - 5 were related to the topic of new gTLDs, 30 were off-topic and mostly submitted by the same person (he was most definitely not fatigued) - 1 of these off topic posts was related to the topic of the Verisign settlement and 1 was in Portuguese and appeared to be more of a commercial solicitation of some sort than a policy submission (I could be wrong). Given the large number of off-topic posts (and the general quality of the on-topic submissions) there is clearly some failure somewhere. Based on the information available, I can only assume that we haven't clearly communicated our request in a broad way. I would really like Council (or commitee - whichever is more procedurally correct) to consider re-opening this comment period and send out some *clear* instructions regarding what we are soliciting input on. As was mentioned in a different context yesterday, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the sum of the views on these subjects are solicited and taken into account during the work of the GNSO. In our rush to meet a poorly set deadline, I do not believe we are able to do so. Some further consideration of this matter would be appreciated. -ross
participants (3)
-
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Ross Rader