FW: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant Issues Project: Draft Integrated Issues Report
Dear Colleagues, The Draft Integrated Issues Report is currently available for public comment. The public comment period was opened on 23 December 2011 and will run until 30 January 2012. We apologize about any confusion you may have had by receiving an interim version of the report sent to this list on 6 December 2011. This was a preliminary version of the report that was shared both to inform the list of progress and to seek input into the report before it is published for public comment. We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible into the draft Integrated Issues Report and now request that any additional comments you may have to be posted in the public comment forum, which will be used in considering changes in the Final Integrated Issues Report. The announcement and public comment forum can be accessed at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23dec11-en.htm Best regards, Naela Sarras ICANN From: ICANN News Alert <communications@icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org>> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:52:18 -0800 To: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras@icann.org<mailto:naela.sarras@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant Issues Project: Draft Integrated Issues Report [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23dec11-en.htm ________________________________ IDN Variant Issues Project: Draft Integrated Issues Report 23 December 2011 IDN Variant Issues Project: Draft Integrated Issues Report Comment Period Deadlines (*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/idn-vip-integrated-issues-23dec11-en....> Open Date: 23 December 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:idn-vip-integrated-issues@icann.org> Close Date: 30 January 2012 Time (UTC): 23:59 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-vip-integrated-issues/> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose On 20 April 2011, ICANN announced the IDN Variant Issues Project<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20apr11-en.htm> to explore the benefits and risks associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone. This project was initiated in response to a 2010 ICANN Board of Directors resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5>. ICANN is publishing today for public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/idn-vip-integrated-issues-23dec11-en....> the draft Integrated Issues Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-vip-integrated-issues-23dec11-e...>, a study of the issues that this project has identified in relation to the management of IDN variant TLDs. It represents the result of the completion of the second phase of the project. The first phase involved the formation of six case study teams for the Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek and Latin scripts. These teams were comprised of community experts with support by ICANN and worked on identifying issues related to IDN variant TLDs for each particular script, resulting in the publication in October of six individual reports<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm> detailing their findings. The second phase focused on integrating those six case study reports into the Integrated Issues Report. To complete this phase, ICANN formed a coordination team<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-03oct11-en.htm> comprised of experts from each of the case study teams. The coordination team advised ICANN in completing the Integrated Issues Report, which summarizes and categorizes the various issues related to the identification and management of IDN variant TLDs. ICANN is now seeking community input on the issues discussed in this draft report. The report will be updated to reflect community feedback and the final Integrated Issues Report will be presented to the ICANN Board of Directors during their meeting at the ICANN public meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Following publication of the final Integrated Issues Report, ICANN will facilitate work toward determining the conditions under which certain types of variant TLDs could be implemented. Future work may also involve developing tools, processes, and protocols to support specific solutions, in cooperation with the appropriate experts. For the purpose of arriving at a determination on whether variant TLDs can be delegated, it is expected that the required work can be completed in calendar year 2012. Section II: Background On 25 September 2010 the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) directed the CEO "to develop an issues report identifying what needs to be done with the evaluation, possible delegation, allocation and operation of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs as part of the new gTLD process in order to facilitate the development of workable approaches to the deployment of gTLDs containing variant characters IDNs." (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5) In response, ICANN conducted six case studies of individual scripts to investigate any issues associated with delegating and using IDN variant TLDs that need to be resolved to facilitate a good user experience. The next phase focused on integrating those six case study reports into the draft Integrated Issues Report, which is being posted here for public comment. Section III: Document and Resource Links Documents posted for comment * The IDN Variant Issues Project: A Study of Issues Related to the Management of IDN Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-vip-integrated-issues-23dec11-e...> Additional Resources * The original Variant Issues Project proposal<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/idn-variant-tlds-delegation-20apr11...> 20 April 2011. Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact: Kurt Pritz Email: kurt.pritz@icann.org<mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20IDN%20Variant%20Issues%20Project:%20Draft%20Integrated%20Issues%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. This message was sent to naela.sarras@icann.org<mailto:naela.sarras@icann.org> from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9827450&l=6333&s=2E94&m=8691...>
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible...
That is not good enough. I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion. Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process. And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process. The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions. Patrik
Patrik, Thank you for your comments about the VIP list. The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams). Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment. The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment. I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report. I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project. Many thanks Dennis On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/> _Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No.IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis, Thanks for the response. I do though not know what I should do with my comments. They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list. I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents. I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know. Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun. Specifically for a very long document like this. And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time. So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published? Or do you have some more constructive proposal? Patrik On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No. IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475 ** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
Patrick, I understand your frustration. May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document. That would be very helpful. Many thanks Dennis On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I do though not know what I should do with my comments.
They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list.
I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents.
I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know.
Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun.
Specifically for a very long document like this.
And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time.
So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published?
Or do you have some more constructive proposal?
Patrik
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/> _Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No.IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis, thanks, I will do so. Patrik On 6 jan 2012, at 11:51, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I do though not know what I should do with my comments.
They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list.
I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents.
I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know.
Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun.
Specifically for a very long document like this.
And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time.
So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published?
Or do you have some more constructive proposal?
Patrik
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No. IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475 ** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
-- Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No. IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475 ** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
Dennis, one specific action that should be possible to do as a courtesy to the people on the VIP list: Circulate the Word version of the final report. Ideally, this would be a redline from the Dec 6 version (the product of diffing the previous version with the current version, not a changelog). But a Word version would allow others to do the diff step. Since none outside of the VIP list have seen the Dec 6 version, it is only the VIP list that would be able to use such a version. Harald On 01/06/2012 11:51 AM, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I do though not know what I should do with my comments.
They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list.
I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents.
I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know.
Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun.
Specifically for a very long document like this.
And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time.
So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published?
Or do you have some more constructive proposal?
Patrik
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harald, Great idea - let me see if this can be done. Dennis On 06/01/2012 12:38, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Dennis,
one specific action that should be possible to do as a courtesy to the people on the VIP list: Circulate the Word version of the final report.
Ideally, this would be a redline from the Dec 6 version (the product of diffing the previous version with the current version, not a changelog). But a Word version would allow others to do the diff step.
Since none outside of the VIP list have seen the Dec 6 version, it is only the VIP list that would be able to use such a version.
Harald
On 01/06/2012 11:51 AM, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I do though not know what I should do with my comments.
They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list.
I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents.
I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know.
Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun.
Specifically for a very long document like this.
And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time.
So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published?
Or do you have some more constructive proposal?
Patrik
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/> _Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No.IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleagues, See attached a redline from the 23-Dec (in public comment) version vs. the 19-Dec version (posted on 20-Dec UTC on this list). Some glyphs may not display properly if you don't have the required fonts, however most of the report should still be intelligible. We can provide a redline from the 5-Dec version in people is interested, though there are too many changes that it may be useless. Let us know if anyone is interested. P.S. I believe Patrik's comments were based on 19-Dec version (the email was in response to the announcement of that version). Regards, __ Francisco. On 1/6/12 4:38 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: Dennis, one specific action that should be possible to do as a courtesy to the people on the VIP list: Circulate the Word version of the final report. Ideally, this would be a redline from the Dec 6 version (the product of diffing the previous version with the current version, not a changelog). But a Word version would allow others to do the diff step. Since none outside of the VIP list have seen the Dec 6 version, it is only the VIP list that would be able to use such a version. Harald On 01/06/2012 11:51 AM, Dennis Jennings wrote: Patrick, I understand your frustration. May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document. That would be very helpful. Many thanks Dennis On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote: Dennis, Thanks for the response. I do though not know what I should do with my comments. They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list. I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents. I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know. Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun. Specifically for a very long document like this. And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time. So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published? Or do you have some more constructive proposal? Patrik On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote: Patrik, Thank you for your comments about the VIP list. The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams). Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment. The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment. I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report. I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project. Many thanks Dennis On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote: We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough. I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion. Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process. And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process. The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions. Patrik -- ________________________________ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie<http://www.knous.ie/> Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie<mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No. IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475 ** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ________________________________ -- ________________________________ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie<http://www.knous.ie/> Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie<mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No. IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475 ** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ________________________________
At 11:51 06/01/2012, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
Dennis, I am not sure this would be helpfull at all. I sent yesterday a comment on behalf of the IUCG (iucg@ietf.org). It is still not published. 1. this document can be fond at: http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_IUCG_debate 2. It says that we are presently doing some secretariat work to make your current version a workable document (Harald's request would help) 3. and analysis work to make it a debatable document since it has not yet any executive summary. If this situation persist, IUCG will try to keep publishing documents and remarks on the VIP issue. I published http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_D%C3%A9bate:_Patrik_Falstr%C3%B6m_inputs the inputs of Patrik Falström. FYI. The page is http://idna2010.org. In our IUse terminology, IDNA2010 covers the post-IDNA2008 non-IETF issues, and IDNA2012 resulting common issues. Best jfc
jfc, Let me investigate why that is so first........ ... and BTW thanks. Dennis On 06/01/2012 14:05, JFC Morfin wrote:
I am not sure this would be helpfull at all. I sent yesterday a comment on behalf of the IUCG (iucg@ietf.org). It is still not published.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/> _Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No.IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just did a test posting from a gmail account and it went through (and later deleted it). Did you confirm the posting of your comment?, you should have received an email from "confirmsystem at icann dot org <mailto:confirmsystem@icann.org>" with a subject like "ConfirmSystem: idn-vip-integrated-issues@icann.org [[1bfa71726df3d152]]". Once you confirm your posting it should take no more than an hour to appear in the public forum: http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-vip-integrated-issues/ We update the webpage every hour at 50 minutes past the hour, if it is of interest. Regards, __ Francisco. On 1/6/12 6:05 AM, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
At 11:51 06/01/2012, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
Dennis,
I am not sure this would be helpfull at all. I sent yesterday a comment on behalf of the IUCG (iucg@ietf.org). It is still not published.
1. this document can be fond at:
http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_IUCG_debate <http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_IUCG_debate> 2. It says that we are presently doing some secretariat work to make your current version a workable document (Harald's request would help) 3. and analysis work to make it a debatable document since it has not yet any executive summary.
If this situation persist, IUCG will try to keep publishing documents and remarks on the VIP issue. I published
http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_D%C3%A9bate:_Patrik_Falstr%C3%B6m_inputs <http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_D%C3%A9bate:_Patrik_Falstr%C3%B6m_inputs> the inputs of Patrik Falström.
FYI. The page is http://idna2010.org <http://idna2010.org/>. In our IUse terminology, IDNA2010 covers the post-IDNA2008 non-IETF issues, and IDNA2012 resulting common issues.
Best
jfc
Dear Francisco, as I answered Naela, I apologize for the confusion. I did not notice the confirmation mail. I sent it back when I saw her mail. My yesterday mail is now listed. Thank you to everyone. Harald's request of the word version would really help to build an internal working document. Best. jfc At 21:04 06/01/2012, Francisco Arias wrote:
I just did a test posting from a gmail account and it went through (and later deleted it). Did you confirm the posting of your comment?, you should have received an email from "confirmsystem at icann dot org <mailto:confirmsystem@icann.org>" with a subject like "ConfirmSystem: idn-vip-integrated-issues@icann.org [[1bfa71726df3d152]]".
Once you confirm your posting it should take no more than an hour to appear in the public forum:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-vip-integrated-issues/
We update the webpage every hour at 50 minutes past the hour, if it is of interest.
Regards,
__
Francisco.
On 1/6/12 6:05 AM, "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
At 11:51 06/01/2012, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
Dennis,
I am not sure this would be helpfull at all. I sent yesterday a comment on behalf of the IUCG (iucg@ietf.org). It is still not published.
1. this document can be fond at:
http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_IUCG_debate <http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_IUCG_debate> 2. It says that we are presently doing some secretariat work to make your current version a workable document (Harald's request would help) 3. and analysis work to make it a debatable document since it has not yet any executive summary.
If this situation persist, IUCG will try to keep publishing documents and remarks on the VIP issue. I published
http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_D%C3%A9bate:_Patrik_Falstr%C3%B6m_inputs <http://iucg.org/wiki/VIP_D%C3%A9bate:_Patrik_Falstr%C3%B6m_inputs> the inputs of Patrik Falström.
FYI. The page is http://idna2010.org <http://idna2010.org/>. In our IUse terminology, IDNA2010 covers the post-IDNA2008 non-IETF issues, and IDNA2012 resulting common issues.
Best
jfc
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Dennis, this conclusion is correct, but let me because of this also bring up another issue regarding a very big flaw in the way ICANN handle public comments. The comments are to be submitted to a webpage, without any requirement for feedback or *discussion* what so ever. This have during the years lead to people simply not submitting comments, but instead repeatedly asking ICANN how to send in comments, or claim that it was impossible to comment or participate. The lack of ability to *discuss* the various issues is something that ICANN must start to take very serious. Just look at the gTLD process, or more specifically two examples I would like to rise: 1. The JIG report that due to the lack of discussion was what I claim "blocked". Specifically regarding one-character TLD. After about a year or so delay, ICANN board did ask the ACs for comments, and yes, SSAC is working on a response. If the responses from the ACs are _very_different_ from the findings in the JIG report, what kind of conclusions can then be drawn under the review of the AOC regarding requirement of openness? 2. The discussions regarding confusability as part of the feedback loop during the IDN ccTLD fast track resulted in a board resolution that says more or less that it is ok to delegate confusingly similar TLDs if it is to the same registry. That is a board resolution that has been taken and as far as I know, none of the ACs where asked for input. There is an interesting discussion going on whether one or more of the ACs must point out that that decision by the board was most certainly premature, and that the advice (that still could have been ignored by the board of course) could have been to be more careful from the ACs. I certainly hope that none of these two examples will lead to any large problems, but I at the same time do not want to have this report end up being one that for example SSAC must at least discuss internally if we should do a detailed review of and come to our own conclusions that we submit to the board -- and in the mean time we ask the board to not draw any conclusions from it. I am just nervous how the participants of for example SSAC will react when we will discuss this report. If they are ok with the process, we can move on, if not, we look at a delay of a year or so. Patrik
Patrick, I honestly don't know enough about the public comments handling process to be able to respond intelligently. It was not one (of the many) things that I looked at when I was on the Board, although I did flag it when I was on the Board's Public Participation Committee as something that I thought should be looked at, because it did seem to me to be very "Vogon" (1) style communication, and that it would benefit from an effective reach-out process whenever anything was published for public comment. Perhaps we could have a chat off-line about this ? I understood that work was being done to review the whole public comment process, but I have no idea where that has got to. Dennis (1) "There's been a sign on Alpha Centauri for the last millennium, why did you not read it ?!" On 06/01/2012 10:46, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Dennis, this conclusion is correct, but let me because of this also bring up another issue regarding a very big flaw in the way ICANN handle public comments.
The comments are to be submitted to a webpage, without any requirement for feedback or *discussion* what so ever.
This have during the years lead to people simply not submitting comments, but instead repeatedly asking ICANN how to send in comments, or claim that it was impossible to comment or participate.
The lack of ability to *discuss* the various issues is something that ICANN must start to take very serious.
Just look at the gTLD process, or more specifically two examples I would like to rise:
1. The JIG report that due to the lack of discussion was what I claim "blocked". Specifically regarding one-character TLD. After about a year or so delay, ICANN board did ask the ACs for comments, and yes, SSAC is working on a response. If the responses from the ACs are _very_different_ from the findings in the JIG report, what kind of conclusions can then be drawn under the review of the AOC regarding requirement of openness?
2. The discussions regarding confusability as part of the feedback loop during the IDN ccTLD fast track resulted in a board resolution that says more or less that it is ok to delegate confusingly similar TLDs if it is to the same registry. That is a board resolution that has been taken and as far as I know, none of the ACs where asked for input. There is an interesting discussion going on whether one or more of the ACs must point out that that decision by the board was most certainly premature, and that the advice (that still could have been ignored by the board of course) could have been to be more careful from the ACs.
I certainly hope that none of these two examples will lead to any large problems, but I at the same time do not want to have this report end up being one that for example SSAC must at least discuss internally if we should do a detailed review of and come to our own conclusions that we submit to the board -- and in the mean time we ask the board to not draw any conclusions from it.
I am just nervous how the participants of for example SSAC will react when we will discuss this report.
If they are ok with the process, we can move on, if not, we look at a delay of a year or so.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/> _Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org> Registered in Ireland No. 477218 Mobile: +353 87 220 8225 VAT No.IE 9726842D Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number Directors: Skype: DennisJennings D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6 jan 2012, at 15:34, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Perhaps we could have a chat off-line about this ?
Yes please. I would like to have input from you here, I say as one of the chairs of the ICANN SO/ACs. I want input from anyone with serious experience from ICANN processes.
(1) "There's been a sign on Alpha Centauri for the last millennium, why did you not read it ?!"
Something like that. But part from that, we also must get *earlier* review on various ideas, and not only the late review the public comment period is. Patrik
Patrik, If you have comments about the way the Public comment process in ICANN works you can send those to my colleague Filiz Yilmaz (copied here) or to <participate@icann.org>. Starting 1 January there is a new process for public comment (the VIP report is still under the previous version). The general information about the new public comment process is provided at the Public Comment web-page at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ The announcement on 22rd December can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22dec11-en.htm We have also been writing articles in monthly Policy Update issues about the topic since July 2011. Archives of these are at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ Regards, __ Francisco. On 1/6/12 2:46 AM, "Patrik Fältström" <patrik@frobbit.se<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>> wrote: On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote: I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project. Dennis, this conclusion is correct, but let me because of this also bring up another issue regarding a very big flaw in the way ICANN handle public comments. The comments are to be submitted to a webpage, without any requirement for feedback or *discussion* what so ever. This have during the years lead to people simply not submitting comments, but instead repeatedly asking ICANN how to send in comments, or claim that it was impossible to comment or participate. The lack of ability to *discuss* the various issues is something that ICANN must start to take very serious. Just look at the gTLD process, or more specifically two examples I would like to rise: 1. The JIG report that due to the lack of discussion was what I claim "blocked". Specifically regarding one-character TLD. After about a year or so delay, ICANN board did ask the ACs for comments, and yes, SSAC is working on a response. If the responses from the ACs are _very_different_ from the findings in the JIG report, what kind of conclusions can then be drawn under the review of the AOC regarding requirement of openness? 2. The discussions regarding confusability as part of the feedback loop during the IDN ccTLD fast track resulted in a board resolution that says more or less that it is ok to delegate confusingly similar TLDs if it is to the same registry. That is a board resolution that has been taken and as far as I know, none of the ACs where asked for input. There is an interesting discussion going on whether one or more of the ACs must point out that that decision by the board was most certainly premature, and that the advice (that still could have been ignored by the board of course) could have been to be more careful from the ACs. I certainly hope that none of these two examples will lead to any large problems, but I at the same time do not want to have this report end up being one that for example SSAC must at least discuss internally if we should do a detailed review of and come to our own conclusions that we submit to the board -- and in the mean time we ask the board to not draw any conclusions from it. I am just nervous how the participants of for example SSAC will react when we will discuss this report. If they are ok with the process, we can move on, if not, we look at a delay of a year or so. Patrik
At 09:48 11-01-2012, Francisco Arias wrote:
Starting 1 January there is a new process for public comment (the VIP report is still under the previous version).
If there any documentation about the process mentioned above? Regards, -sm
Hi SM, Check the links provided in the response to Patrik (and re-included below), for example: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec11-en.htm#1 You can ask my colleague Filiz about that, since I'm no expert on the Public comment process. __ Francisco. On 1/11/12 12:53 PM, "SM" <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
At 09:48 11-01-2012, Francisco Arias wrote:
Starting 1 January there is a new process for public comment (the VIP report is still under the previous version).
If there any documentation about the process mentioned above?
Regards, -sm
Starting 1 January there is a new process for public comment (the VIP report is still under the previous version). The general information about the new public comment process is provided at the Public Comment web-page at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/
The announcement on 22rd December can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22dec11-en.htm
We have also been writing articles in monthly Policy Update issues about the topic since July 2011. Archives of these are at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/
Hi Francisco, At 13:28 11-01-2012, Francisco Arias wrote:
Check the links provided in the response to Patrik (and re-included below), for example:
Thanks.
You can ask my colleague Filiz about that, since I'm no expert on the Public comment process.
I couldn't find any information about the decision-making. I prefer not to ask specific questions as it may end up being awkward. Regards, -sm
participants (7)
-
Dennis Jennings -
Francisco Arias -
Harald Alvestrand -
JFC Morfin -
Naela Sarras -
Patrik Fältström -
SM