[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IFWP] ICANN comments deadline

I may not use the same words as Stef but I have to agree with the
3 days (or less if you live in the wrong time zone) to prepare a
formal response (or even coherent comments)on some of these issues is
totally inappropriate.

As for Stef's "Sahdes of IAHC" commentary, my memory may be fading
with age but I remember having much more time to comment both formally
and informally during the IAHC process.  There were many aspects of
IAHC that I disagreed with, but a 3-day comment period is not one of
them.   This part (at least) they appear to have done better than
ICANN and I feel it's important to set the record straight.

Back to our regular program...

Sorry to be blunt but this process of publishing drafts and seeking
comment prior to making a decision is not exactly rocket science. 
While it may not be legally necessary (or even useful) to follow govt.
procedures, anyone who really wants comment on their work should be
prepared to allow sufficient lead time.  If someone needs some
information by a particular date, it is normal to count backwards and
find out when to start asking for it in order to give people adequate
time to respond.  It is also normal to expect people to complain if
you don't give them adequate time.  It is also normal for people to
complain vigourously if you don't have an excellent reason for the
rush.  I am willing to listen, but given that relevant dates have been
known for a little while, it will be hard to convince me.

As to what to do about this situation, all I can suggest is that we
not be forced to bear the cost of this situation.  That (IMHO) means
extending the deadline and I know that it means that the people who
have to read the comments won't have much time before the Singapore
meeting.  That could mean burning lots of midnight oil or it could
mean information overload.  If the latter is true, then decisions
should not be taken on such issues.

There will be other meetings.  The stability of the internet is not at
stake.  Mail is getting through.  The trains are running on time. 
There's no rush (although many like myself would like to see something
finally happen).

Einar Stefferud wrote:
> By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to
> obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global
> Interent Community?
> Sahdes of IAHC...  they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks
> before reading and ignoring our efforts.
> But, I suppose this is called trust building, to be able to show NTIA
> that they have waced their ideas under our noses and tht our responses
> were to weak to bother with;-)...
> Cheers...\Stef
> Cheers...\Stef
> >From your message Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:46:27 -0800:
> }
> }[Sorry for the cross-posting and repetition, but I want to be sure that no
> }one misses their chance to submit comments on issues to be considered by
> }the ICANN Board.]
> }
> }Please submit comments to ICANN on the proposals for the domain name
> }supporting organization, draft registrar accreditation guidelines, draft
> }conflicts of interest policy, and draft reconsideration policy.  In order
> }to ensure that comments will be considered by the ICANN Board in advance of
> }its March 4 meeting, please submit them before midnight, U.S. West Coast
> }Time, February 26, following the instructions at:
> }
> }http://www.icann.org/drafts.html
> }
> }Please submit written comments even if you will be attending the public
> }forum on March 3 in Singapore, as time for commenting in person at the
> }meeting will be limited.
> }
> }If you have any questions, please send them directly to me at msvh@icann.org.
> }
> }Thank you,
> }
> }Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
> }Senior Advisor, ICANN
> }

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0			e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy