ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting. Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review Draft Final Working Group Report Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment. And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive. The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move. Alan
Alan, You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and reports that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before each ICANN meeting. I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN staff are operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of documents and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for the community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of reports are published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for people to process and give them the attention they deserve. If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the load a little, I'm sure that would help. Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the comment periods. Stéphane Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
On 7 Oct 2009, at 07:25, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Alan,
You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and reports that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before each ICANN meeting.
I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN staff are operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of documents and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for the community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of reports are published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for people to process and give them the attention they deserve.
If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the load a little, I'm sure that would help.
That is, unfortunately the way with deadlines. Once the deadline for docs was made for 2 weeks before the meeting, most all efforts scheduled back from that date. I would note that it is a sign of how important the IDN Fast Track decision is that this document came out earlier. But with much of the same team working on both Fast Track and DAG, one really did have to come first.
Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the comment periods.
In terms of the request, I believe we did have a council resolution making this request formally a while back, so I hope the renewed request is seen as coming from the entire council. a.
Stéphane
Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review – Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review – Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review – Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
That is, unfortunately the way with deadlines. Once the deadline for docs was made for 2 weeks before the meeting, most all efforts scheduled back from that date.
Totally. Setting such a deadline was a sure way of getting all reports and documents to come out two weeks before the meetings and at no other time. This is why I was making the point. Hopefully, we can get this deadline treated as just that, a final deadline. And not a single main release date for all documents. Stéphane
This is quite true and as mentioned, the workload on staff (and volunteers who "staff" some of these efforts such as the review committees) that only so much can be done to stagger the release of the reports (without arbitrarily holding them for release after the meeting - which I am NOT advocating). But unless there are extreme time pressures, there is little reason not to extend the comment period! Alan At 07/10/2009 07:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
That is, unfortunately the way with deadlines. Once the deadline for docs was made for 2 weeks before the meeting, most all efforts scheduled back from that date.
All, Yes, the Council passed the following motion in Cairo -- Mike Rodenbaugh, seconded by Zahid Jamil and Kristina Rosette proposed a motion on the extension of Public Comment Periods during ICANN meetings Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors and many other GNSO participants. Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant interest to many GNSO Councilors and participants. Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many members of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with members of their Constituency and/or member organization(s). RESOLVED: The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN meeting. Motion passed with one abstention from Adrian Kinderis (two votes) Policy Staff have been mindful of this practice for comment forums that we are coordinating directly and we do recognize the challenge this can present. We will again convey your concerns and urge that, especially with the large amount of work underway, adjustments should be made wherever possible. Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 4:52 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul On 7 Oct 2009, at 07:25, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Alan,
You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and reports that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before each ICANN meeting.
I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN staff are operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of documents and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for the community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of reports are published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for people to process and give them the attention they deserve.
If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the load a little, I'm sure that would help.
That is, unfortunately the way with deadlines. Once the deadline for docs was made for 2 weeks before the meeting, most all efforts scheduled back from that date. I would note that it is a sign of how important the IDN Fast Track decision is that this document came out earlier. But with much of the same team working on both Fast Track and DAG, one really did have to come first.
Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the comment periods.
In terms of the request, I believe we did have a council resolution making this request formally a while back, so I hope the renewed request is seen as coming from the entire council. a.
Stéphane
Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review - Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review - Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review - Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
This is a very helpful discussion. Consistent with the concerns and suggestions made so far, it seems to me that we on the Council can take actions to improve this in the future. For example, in our role as manager of the policy development process, we can encourage WGs, DTs, etc. to minimize finalizing documents for GNSO review and/or action less than 4 weeks before an ICANN international public meeting unless it is critical that the documents be a part of the applicable in-person meetings. I am not suggesting that this was an issue for this meeting that we could have handled any differently but suggesting this might be something we could do going forward. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:26 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Council GNSO Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul
Alan,
You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and reports that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before each ICANN meeting.
I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN staff are operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of documents and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for the community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of reports are published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for people to process and give them the attention they deserve.
If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the load a little, I'm sure that would help.
Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the comment periods.
Stéphane
Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC
officers today,
we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
Alan, The public comment period on the ERSR has been extended to 16 November. Best, Craig Sent from my iPhone-Please excuse any typos. On Oct 6, 2009, at 9:12 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
Thanks Craig, Glad to see that has now been done. At 08/10/2009 03:08 PM, Craig Schwartz wrote:
Alan,
The public comment period on the ERSR has been extended to 16 November.
Best, Craig
Sent from my iPhone-Please excuse any typos.
On Oct 6, 2009, at 9:12 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback by the number and importance of ICANN comment periods that had just opened in the last several days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
Posted 01 Oct, Due 01 Nov, Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) Posted 02 Oct, Due 06 Nov, Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, NomCom Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, SSAC Review Draft Working Group Report Posted 05 Oct, Due 04 Nov, Board Review Draft Final Working Group Report
Although we seemed to recall that a commitment had been made to not "count" the time during an ICANN meeting against one month comment periods, that is clearly not being done here. For the Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business days in transit or at the meeting, significantly cutting into the time available to comment.
And we noted that although all of these topics are quite important, only the ERSR one could really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may wish to consider a similar move.
Alan
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Craig Schwartz -
Gomes, Chuck -
Liz Gasster -
Stéphane Van Gelder