Friedrich and others,I'm not sure everyone remembers
or knows about the discussion that took place in Yokohama, where ICANN staff person
Rebecca Nesson presented a detailed analysis of public comments ICANN had received
about New TLD comments received to date.
You can read about this presentation in
the Yokohama Public Forum Scribe's notes, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/scribe-icann-071500.html
, section II.E. You can also see Rebecca's presentation at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/presentations/nesson-tld-071500/
, as linked from scribe's notes. (Those truly interested in this topic could
even watch the archived video as linked from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/agenda-pubforum-071500.html
)
I gather at least you, Friedrich, think this way of proceeding was inadequate
and failed to give the Board a sufficient sense of public response to the various
proposals on the table. If you think this method was inadequate, though, I
think it would be helpful for you to suggest specific alternatives; it is at least
my sense that ICANN is open to and interested in various ways of receiving and responding
to public comment, but the methods used in Yokohama were, it seems to me, more or
less exhaustive of all the approaches that immediately come to mind.
All
that's to say -- I for one would welcome your suggestions re what more ICANN should
do here.