Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Work Schedule

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'd like to note that there are over *20* current open ICANN public
comment periods as listed in the "Open for Comment" column of:

http://icann.org/en/public-comment/

I believe this is overload on the community, and a sign of bad
planning/prioritization, as I noted already in the preface to my
comment on the Registrants Rights charter / RAA proposals at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-improvements2010/msg00000.html

CIRA (.ca ccTLD registry) has 100 day comment periods, for example,
and doesn't pile up the issues like ICANN has done.

Four of the currently open ICANN comment periods have already been
extended. Indeed, one of them was extended for *3 weeks*, from July 9
to July 30:

http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#raa-improvements2010

I assume James is also opposing the cancellation of some of the
teleconferences in August as part of the "etc.", but perhaps he should
be explicit on that point.

It takes two to tango....I joined the workgroup in May, and despite a
number of direct questions on the mailing list, have received little
response, even to invitations to talk directly. Is it really
"opposition to delays", or simply "opposition to opposition", to force
through bad policy choices without allowing the public to fully digest
the ramifications of ICANN decisions? The public deserves that full
time to consider issues....especially when the "insiders" are putting
forth such radical proposals for change.

On the point of "urgency", the report itself (pages 38 and 39)
documented that stolen domains / hijackings ranked TENTH in importance
in ICANN complaints related to transfers. When the data itself is
arguing this should be a low priority workgroup, I fail to understand
the urgency some are placing on it. If another workgroup needs to be
started in the IRTP series, and this one put in the freezer, one would
see no opposition from me on that point.

September 13, 2010 (one week after US/Canada Labour Day) would be a
far superior deadline for comments, to allow the public ample time to
digest the report and also enjoy their summer holidays. It would also
reflect the low pecking order of domain hijackings relative to other
ICANN issues as documented within the actual report.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:55 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Michele and Team:
>
> Now that I've had a little while to consider our teleconference, I'd
> like to go on record as Opposing any delays, extension of comment
> periods, etc.
>
> Reasoning:
>
> *  As Marika and others have pointed out, ICANN is a deadline-oriented
> community.  Extending the comment period doesn't necessarily mean we'll
> receive more or better responses, since most folks will simply post on
> the due date.  (I'm notoriously guilty of this myself!)
>
> *  We shouldn't be so quick to defer to other issues currently in the
> spotlight (e.g. New gTLDs), if only because once these fade, another hot
> topic will certainly take it's place (VI, dot-XXX, etc.).  If anything,
> we should be -protective- of whatever slice of attention we can garner.
>
> *  The work of IRTP-B is a prerequisite for other working groups in the
> IRTP Series, and I'm concerned that a delay of days or weeks in any
> single WG could cascade in to weeks or months added to the overall
> Series timeline.
>
> *  I empathize with those wanting to wait until after Labor Day / Early
> September, but this isn't always practical in a multi-national
> organization, where nearly every day is a holiday -somewhere-.  Some
> folks have pointed out that there was a VI call on July 5th, meaning the
> Americans on the group either sacrificed a few hours of their holiday,
> or sent their apologies.
>
>
> In short, I think we need to preserve (and create) momentum wherever
> possible.  This is one of the more functional WGs within ICANN, and I'd
> hate for it to lose its sense of urgency.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>