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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Konstantinos,

There are many ways to look at this.  You say that we will be setting bad 
precedent by acting.  I think we are setting bad precedent by not acting.  To 
fail to act would mean endorsing the staff’s implementation of a Board 
Resolution that never went through public comment in the first place.  Now, in 
order to fix that flawed implementation, we have to go through a public comment 
period.

So, we have a dilemma that we should have never been placed in the first 
instance.  Do we either (a) let the flawed implementation stand (thereby 
endorsing the right of the Board and staff to act without any public comment) 
or (b) do we correct the implementation after a multi-stakeholder approach and 
consultation with the GAC, the stakeholder groups, constituencies, advisory 
committees, etc (albeit with a shorter than recommended public comment period).

For me and the RySG the choice is pretty clear, it is option (b)



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: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:17 AM
To: 'Thomas Rickert'; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Margie Milam; Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Explanation of the Dates in the Public Comment 
Forum

Thanks for this clarification Margie. It is very helpful.

It is important we follow here the GNSO rules and, in particular, if these 
rules reflect the need to comply with the ATRT recommendations. We may call it 
‘policy’ or ‘implementation’ – it doesn’t really matter. Here there is a clear 
rule that we are attempting to ‘amend due to exceptional circumstances’. And, 
this is a slippery slope. If we do so, what really stops other ICANN policy 
groups from using other or similar justifications to ‘adjust’ the public 
comment period timeframe? There are some of us who believe that a bad precedent 
is already being set here (by seeking to provide special protection for these 
two organizations when there are really valid questions as to whether it is 
necessary) and through our attempts to minimize the time of the public comment 
period, I believe we are encouraging an additional one.  The fact that this 
timeframe was established according to the ATRT recommendations and this should 
be sufficient for us; even the GAC has put a lot of emphasis on the ATRT 
recommendations.

Thanks

Konstantinos

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Δευτέρα, 5 Μαρτίου 2012 5:55 μμ
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Margie Milam; Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Explanation of the Dates in the Public Comment 
Forum

Dear all,
IMHO we are currently trying to find ways to _implement_ a decision that has 
already been made by the board. The situation is completely different to the 
GNSO developing policy.

As far as I can remember, we made this clear during our previous calls and in 
particular in the call with the GAC. The proposal that has been circulated only 
affects the first round and is subject to a review, if needed.

As a consequence of the aforesaid and with the time pressure given, it can 
easily be explained why procedures are not adhered to as the GNSO usually would.

The risk of failing to deliver on this matter is far higher than to be 
criticized for formal aspects.

Thomas

Am 05.03.2012 um 18:44 schrieb Gomes, Chuck:


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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:23 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:32 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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




___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de>