To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the stated needs of the community." Translation is an ongoing issue, but I have not seen any such publicly stated "need" with respect to this issue in particular, any more than dozens or hundreds of other issues. More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of the decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal properly made to the Board to open a second comment period, but solely about the identity of the decision-maker and the process and authority for their decision. An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the confusion of substantive and procedural issues, and the erroneous assumption that a good-faith belief in the merits of the outcome is sufficient to justify any defects in the process by which that outcome was or is reached. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Edward,
The decision to extend the comment period was taken with the agreement of our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the Office of the General Counsel since you believe this issue to be primarily about legal authority.
I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the provision of more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the stated needs of the community.
Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@hasbrouck.org> wrote:
While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to the Board for a second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost infinite number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to which member of staff had this authority, and on what basis. Could you please send me the URL of the minutes of the Board decision delegating to a member of the staff the authority to overrule the decision of the Board setting the comment period at 60 days, or of the provision of the Bylaws you believe gives that member of the staff the authority to overrule such a Board decision?
Sincerely,
Edward Hasbrouck
On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Edward,
The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment period has been extended by staff because translations of the proposed bylaws were finalised too late to allow non-English language users to participate fully in the consultation. The translated versions will be posted this week in five other languages, and a further two months of consultation time allowed to ensure everyone has the same chance to take part.
Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell
On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward@hasbrouck.org> wrote:
According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm
"Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views."
The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board:
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8
"Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public comment:..."
I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment period, or delegating authority to do so.
Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote?
Many thanks,
Edward Hasbrouck
---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward@hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214