RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Comment Period - To Extend or not to extend, that is the question

["Erdman, Kevin R." <Kevin.Erdman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I will explain my vote, I read both sides of the arguments and felt that the
better argument was for no extension.  I respect the informed opinions of
others in my constituency, but I am not constrained by other members of my
constituency having an opposite opinion.

Regards.
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
Kevin R Erdman  T: 317.237.1029 | F: 317.237.8521 | C: 317.289.3934
Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Attorney, Registered Patent
Attorney
BAKER & DANIELS LLP WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300 N. MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 2700 |
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:04 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx List
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Comment Period - To Extend or not to extend,
that is the question


P.S. I don't think it's *good* enough for folks to simply vote "yes"
or "no", without explaining their so-called "vote."

I note, for example Kevin Erdman of the IPC constituency voted "no" to
an extension. How does he reconcile that with the statement of J.
Scott Evans of the IPC that I quoted from below, which talked about
the need for longer comment periods??

Sincerely,

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

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:55 AM, George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's cutting things very close, then, because if it is not extended,
> then one only has a few days left to finish one's comments. And there
> are numerous other important comment periods still outstanding.
>
> I'll note that this feeling of "overload" is shared by many in the
> ICANN community, who've expressly noted it in other recent comments,
> e.g.
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00000.html
>
> "I think that it points out that this comment process is not very
> effective." (Alan Greenberg)
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00009.html
>
> "It is clear to us that this public comment process is broken. To the
> extent that the purpose of the public comment process is to enhance
> the accountability and transparency of ICANN's decision making
> process, it is failing.......(skip)...The first is the sheer volume of
> public comment periods.....(skip)....While ICANN decisions have
> significant impacts on many organizations and individuals, it is
> simply not feasible for almost any organization or individual to keep
> up with this pace of public comment activity....(skip)....These facts
> may help explain why a large proportion of public comment periods
> expire with virtually no substantive comments received. Members of the
> public simply cannot keep up with the volume of public comment
> opportunities; ...." (Steven J. Metalitz, Coalition for Online
> Accountability)
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00012.html
>
> "The public comment period is also a highly ineffective one-way system for
> receiving input that the community has asked for years be improved."
> (Kieren McCarthy)
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00025.html
>
> "A prioritisation of the ICANN work and longer time periods for
> comments are needed, especially for complex issues. Currently the
> workload just before the ICANN meeting is such, that it is clearly
> impossible for most members of the community to engage and contribute
> efficiently." (J.L. Debecker, ETNO)
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00019.html
>
> "ICANN must provide the community more time for public comment, and
> greatly improve and clarify the public comment process itself to allow
> for adequate public consideration of its decisions and policy making.
> For example, in 2010 alone, there have been two public comment periods
> when nearly 20 or more topics have been open for comments
> simultaneously." (J. Scott Evans, IPC)
>
> Just to give 5 examples. From people who cannot "vote" for more time
> in your "poll.". And those are from folks who actually *commented*,
> i.e. we don't get to see all the "demand" from people for more time
> who simply gave up, because they didn't have enough time to comment in
> this so-called "democratic" process. There's a reason why there's a
> saying about the "tyranny of the majority" -- it gives people
> something to hide behind, so they can avoid accountability and
> responsibility.
>
> Folks *need* more time. When I first raised the issue in May, folks
> falsely asserted that it was just not possible. Now that it's clear
> that it *is* possible, ample time should be given (and 2 weeks just
> isn't enough, either, given all the existing comment periods folks are
> dealing with right now, not just my own feeling but those from others
> as stated above and elsewhere; if another comment period was extended
> by 3 weeks, so should this one, if folks aren't going to accept a
> September deadline). The "costs" of extending the comment period are
> minimal, compared to the benefits to the community.
>
> As Andrew Jackson said, "One man with courage makes a majority."
> That's leadership.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> We discussed the possibility of extending the comment period both  on the
call this week and on the list afterwards
>>
>> There is obviously some difference of opinion on the matter
>>
>> So in order to preserve my sanity and clarify the situation once and for
all I've created a simple Doodle poll.
>>
>> Please vote with your name before 0900 UTC on Tuesday
>>
>> The vote of the poll will decide if we add the extra 2 weeks or not.
>>
>> Simple, easy and democratic
>>
>> Vote here: http://www.doodle.com/eaxwbb5i9d8k64h4
>>
>>
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://blacknight.mobi/
>> http://mneylon.tel
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> US: 213-233-1612
>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>
>>
>>
>


----------------------------
ATTENTION:

To ensure compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Service Regulations,
we inform you that any tax advice contained in this electronic message was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.


This message and all its attachments are PRIVATE and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED.

If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail and delete the message immediately.