Re: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Registry Constituency Comments

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn

I will leave it to the Registry Constituency to explain why they were  
late -- the deadlines have been clear for weeks and everyone else has  
either met them, sought an extension or been missed.  It is up to the  
Committee to decide what to do with the Registry input and it is not  
a decision for me to make to exclude them without a decision from the  
Committee.  From my side, it creates enormous extra work to include  
any late submissions.  You will see that extra work which has been  
going on behind the scenes through other materials which I have put  
together for the meeting but which are not yet complete.

On your point about detailed analysis -- that comes after everyone  
has read what I have distributed and it also comes through working  
through the draft agenda.

Some very good things have come from the masses of materials which I  
have had to deal with since the close of public comments on 18  
August.  We have lots of new ideas, lots of interest in the process  
and lots of challenging things to deal with through the course of the  
meeting.

I look forward to seeing you next week.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 26 Aug 2006, at 03:38, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Why am I seeing late postings from a constituency and not late  
> postings from
> all others? I can't tell if there were postings that missed the  
> deadline,
> but the deadline was 18th; this is dated 25 August.
>
> Flexibility has to be equally extended to anyone interested, IF we  
> have
> extended a deadline to a constituency, then all parties have to  
> have equal
> flexibility and a notice that we are open to their comments and  
> extend the
> deadline.
> I checked the public forum list and didn't see this posted. That  
> doesn't
> seem like the open and transparent and balanced approach that the  
> GNSO and
> therefore its TF have to follow to be considered legitimate.
>
> I favor flexibility and trying to accommodate late postings, but we  
> have to
> have equal openness for the community as we have for constituencies.
>
> I am not sure how the community will receive the staff  
> recommendation that
> we ignore the deadline provided, in favor of a constituency,  
> however well
> meaning this was. It is a question to the TF to decide on whether  
> to accept
> postings that are several days late. I may support such  
> flexibility, but I
> will support equal flexibility, IF the decision is flexibility.
>
> I'm also a little concerned that I am getting lists, and not  
> sophisticated
> analysis. How can I demand quality analysis on material submitted  
> not hours
> but days after the deadline?
>
> So, how to address this and ensure that the community has equal  
> flexibility
> as constituencies... we can discuss this at our public meeting and  
> be on the
> record on our guidance to staff for addressing this and any future
> situations.
>
> I already note that the policy development process is starved for  
> resources
> versus the commitment to resources for outreach in the operational  
> plan and
> budget. Council, working with the V.P. of Policy, needs to focus on  
> support
> to those limited resources that we have. Having a constituency be  
> several
> days late in posting is challenging.
>
> I am sure this is quality information and useful; but really, for a
> constituency to be days late, not hours late, and not to advise the  
> TF that
> they need an extension is very challenging to their peers, who have  
> all
> sought to meet the deadline.
>
> Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:26 PM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] GNSO PDP Dec 05: Registry Constituency  
> Comments
> Importance: High
>
> Colleagues
>
> And I thought I had everything I needed to send to you...
>
> Here are some comments which have been submitted by the Registry
> Constituency.
>
> Over the weekend, I will update the Public Comment document which is
> currently in the Shinkuro room.
>
> Happy reading and bon weekend!
>
> Liz
> ....................................................
>
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri 25 Aug 2006 16:43:24 GMT+02:00
> > To: Glen De Saint Géry <glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin"
> > <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Williams"
> > <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <ck@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Seo,
> > June" <jseo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ray Fassett" <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Additional Dec05 PDP Comments from the RyC
> >
> > Glen/Bruce/Liz,
> >
> > I have attached some additional comments that the RyC would like
> > distributed to the Dec05 PDP committee as soon as possible to
> > hopefully allow members to review them before our meeting begins in
> > Amsterdam on Tuesday.  Your assistance in this regard would be much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > <<Additional Dec05 PDP Comments from the RyC.doc>>
> > Please let me know if you have any questions.  I along with other
> > RyC committee reps will be prepared to discuss these in Amsterdam.
> >
> > See you there.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Chuck Gomes
> > VeriSign Information Services
> > cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > VeriSign®--------------Where it all comes together.™