Re: [dssa] i stole some of our stuff as rapporteur for the ISPCP comments on ICANN's SSR role and remit

[David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>]

Patrick, Don and Mikey:

I saw this exchange and asked Filiz Yilmaz to provide further details.

Regards,     David

===========================================================


My name is Filiz Yilmaz, ICANN Staff.

I would like to address the recent mails regarding the ICANN Public
Comment Process.

As Don Blumenthal already noted, the new system was put in place by Jan
2012, as implementation of ATRT recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 21.

He also explained the Comment and Reply periods. I would just like to
provide confirmation of his points mostly, as the ICANN Staff who holds
the main responsibility of the implementation and management of this
process. 

The main criteria set for this system are as noted at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment:

- 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.



Last point relates to the recent question raised in the list. As Don also
noted, the main intention behind the Reply period is mainly to address the
previous comments and have some discussion regarding them, facilitating
the desired consensus-building process.

While this system has been in place for about 6 months now, the ICANN
Board's Public Participation Committee (PPC) will hold a session to
receive community feedback and experience about the process again during
their consultation session during ICANN 44 in Prague.
Please join us in this session to provide your feedback on Thursday 28
June (9:00 ­ 10:30 am).
You can find the details of the session at:

http://prague44.icann.org/node/31809


Please let me know if I can be any further help.


Kind regards,

---
Filiz Yilmaz
Sr Dir Participation and Engagement
ICANN







David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930
Washington, D.C.    20005
Office: 202.570.7126      Mobile:  202.341.3611








On 6/15/12 9:03 AM, "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Yes, in my mind this reply period really just makes it a 60 day comment
>period on the role & remit statement.
>
>And there's certainly plenty of ideas in the ISPCP comment to consider
>with a reply comment.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:44 AM, "Don Blumenthal" <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 
>> The reply period is a new mechanism added at the beginning of the year
>>as
>> part of work to implement some of the ATRT recommendations (15-17?). I
>>was
>> part of the focus group that decided to complicate the process.
>> 
>> The period for comments is what it always was, and ends tomorrow in this
>> case. The added reply period is for comments on the comments, and
>> hopefully a bit of online discussion. With that out of the way, some
>>folks
>> have been known to use the reply slot as a de facto extension of the
>>time
>> to comment.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> On 6/15/12 8:26 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> ah ha!  i've caught me a live one.  somebody who actually knows what's
>>> going on.
>>> 
>>> what *is* the "reply period" anyhow?  can you give us the quick and
>>>dirty
>>> difference between comment-period and reply-period?
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Patrick Jones wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mikey,
>>>> 
>>>> The comment process is a bit confusing. With the reply period
>>>>included,
>>>> the actual deadline is 16 July, not tomorrow. But early comments are
>>>> welcomed to drive discussion in Prague.
>>>> 
>>>> Patrick
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:19 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> i'd be curious to hear your reactions to the comments we, the GNSO
>>>>> ISPCP constituency, just submitted in response to the request for
>>>>> comments on the proposed SSR role and remit.  i "repurposed" some of
>>>>> our cool ideas and drawings spiff them up a bit.  you can do that too
>>>>> if you want -- that's why we published the Powerpoint file that has
>>>>>all
>>>>> the pictures in it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> here's the link to the "comments received" page (do note how lonely
>>>>> our response is at this moment -- ours is but one of two -- 'seems
>>>>>like
>>>>> there should be more -- deadline is tomorrow).
>>>>> 
>>>>>  http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-ssr-role-remit/
>>>>> 
>>>>> mikey
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> phone    651-647-6109
>>>>> fax          866-280-2356
>>>>> web    http://www.haven2.com
>>>>> handle    OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>>>>> Google, etc.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone    651-647-6109
>>> fax          866-280-2356
>>> web    http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle    OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>>>Google,
>>> etc.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>