[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Explanation of the Dates in the Public Comment Forum

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck-

I thought so--- I explained that there was a new policy,  which required a 
total of 42 days, that came into effect at the beginning of the year.   It was 
my understanding that the DT believed that it was better to get the information 
"out there" and proceed in spite of these new rules,  so please accept my 
sincerest apologies if I misunderstood the direction of the DT.   

All the best,
Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Margie Milam; Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: RE: Explanation of the Dates in the Public Comment Forum

Thanks Margie.  What was clearly explained on Friday's call?  Did you state 
that there must be 21 + 21 comment period and explain why?

With regard to GNSO comment periods, the Council should have the right to make 
exceptions when needed as long as justification is provided.  Is only the Board 
able to make exceptions?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:23 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Explanation of the Dates in the Public 
> Comment Forum
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I wanted to provide some clarification with regard to the new public 
> comment policy as it affects the IOC/RC DT’s posting.
> 
> In order to get the comment period opened on Friday, the dates were 
> changed to match the new policy—see:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment.
> 
> This Board mandated public comment policy was adopted as part of the 
> adoption of the ATRT recommendations, and has been in effect since the 
> beginning of the year.  It applies to all public comments, regardless 
> of whether the comment originates in a PDP or from other types of work.
> 
> The policy states that:
> 
> Each public comment topic (opened from 1 January 2012) is subject to a 
> Comment and a Reply period as follows:
> •     The official minimum Comment period is 21 days.
> •     The official minimum Reply period is 21 days.
> •     If no substantive comments are received during the Comment
> period, then there will be no         Reply period.
> •     During the Reply period, participants should address previous
> comments submitted; new posts         concerning the topic should not be
> introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are       asked to
> cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text
> that is       pertinent.
> 
> This was clearly explained on Friday’s call.  I thought it best to get 
> it posted ASAP, since I do not have the ability to override the Boards’
> policy, rather than miss the opportunity to post on Friday.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Margie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 4:43 AM
> To: Margie Milam; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review- 
> Final Version
> 
> All,
> 
>  I just wanted everyone to know that despite the conversation on the 
> list and the fact that i edited the comment period description to end 
> the day before the Council meeting, ICANN staff decided to have the 
> public comment period end March 23, and this new "reply period" to end 
> on April 14th (2 days after the application window closes).  I wanted 
> to bring this to everyone's attention because I fully expect Icann 
> staff to defend their letter of the status quo for round 1 based 
> solely on the fact that the public comment period ends after the 
> window closes.  I am extremely disappointed In yet another attempt to 
> circumvent our process and the work we are doing and would like to add 
> this to the list of questions for Icann staff.  I also expect 
> criticism from the community if we ask the gnso to act before the 
> public comment period ends.  I have already have 2 reporters point 
> this out to me and ask if that meant that the notion of changes were 
> "killed".  (I did not respond).
> 
> I would like to ask for those dates to be revised so as to not create 
> confusion or the perception that neither the gnso council or the 
> stafford can act before the comment period is up.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   'Margie Milam'; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review-
> Final Version
> 
> 
> Thanks Margie.  We really appreciate the quick turnaround,
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 05:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review-  Final
> Version
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> I accepted Jeff’s revisions and caught a few typos.   The proposal is
> untouched, except to add a footnote with the date.
> 
> 
> 
> Since there don’t appear to be any more comments,  this will be 
> forwarded for posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: Margie Milam; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Draft Public Comment For Review
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay, but this looks right to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for 
> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential 
> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient 
> you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, 
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please 
> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:32 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Public Comment For Review
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> Attached for your review is the DT Proposal to be posted with the
> Public Comment announcement discussed in below.   I have also attached
> a redline indicating the changes from the Status Report.
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know ASAP if you have any suggested changes or revisions 
> to this document.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 12:03 PM
> To: 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Draft Public Comment For Review
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
> As discussed on today’s call, please find attached for your review the 
> announcement of the opening of a public comment on the proposed 
> solution. I will circulate the proposal document separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide any comments ASAP.  I  plan to forward to the web admin 
> team, per the DT’s instructions, this afternoon, at 4:00pm PST.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> 
> 
> Margie
> 
>