[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comments

[Greg Shatan]

Actually, i believe that ICANN just recently shifted from the two-part
comment period (21 day initial comment & 21 day reply comment) to a single
40-day comment period.

Greg

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

>  +1. Larry Strickling has stated that the community has only one chance
> to get this right. In addition, not only is September 30th not a deadline
> but NTIA has acknowledged that it is subject to the appropriations rider
> enacted in December which prohibits the transition taking place by
> September 30th.
>
>
>
> A two part comment period (initial comment followed by reply) is now
> standard for much less important issues addressed by the ICANN community,
> so that certainly should be the minimum expected for a permanent new
> accountability framework. A full comment period will also facilitate the
> detailed fine-tuning that will improve the overall proposal, build
> community support, and thereby substantially reduce the likelihood of any
> future actions by Congress to forestall the transition.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Robin
> Gross
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2015 12:27 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Public Comments
>
>
>
> I agree with Kavouss.  I think it would be terribly irresponsible of us to
> make the kind of reforms we need for WS1 with only one single 20-day
> comment period.  There are significant impacts to these measures that must
> be explored by the community before we could possibly undertake them.  We
> are redesigning a global governance institution and need to take the time
> to do it right, which includes community consultation and an iterative
> process of reaching recommendations.  This cannot be achieved without a
> reply or 2nd comment period to take the public comments on board.  Nor can
> it be done before we have independent legal advice that the community can
> weigh and consider.  These are complex issues with significant implications
> for many stakeholders - more significant than anything ICANN has done in a
> decade.
>
>
>
> Larry Strickling has said several times that 30 Sept is not a deadline and
> that the IANA contract would be extended while the community takes the
> necessary time to get the important issues right.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>
>
>   Dear Jordan,
>
> Dear Co Chairs
>
> Dear All,
>
> I think one public comment is not sufficient , Why for such an important
> issue only one period is forseen unless we are of the strong view that one
> dialogue between CCWG and the entire community is enough,in particular, for
> WS2 as the scope , nature and extent of that stream  is too complex .
>
> We need to revisit this item again.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-03-22 16:57 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:
>
> It's important to be clear that the current schedule proposes:
>
>
>
> ONE public comment period for WorkStream 1 matters (pre-transition)
>
>
>
> ONE public comment period for WorkStream 2 matters (post-transition)
>
>
>
> It remains to be seen whether it is possible to construct our
> pre-transition proposal based on one comment period - hopefully this will
> be clear by Tuesday afternoon.
>
>
>
> bests
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 March 2015 at 17:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kavouss,
>
> According to the timeline, there seem to be two 40 days public comments
> planned for the ccwg.
>
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150129/c9bfee6e/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129-0001.pdf
>
> Regards
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 22 Mar 2015 13:27, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Dear All,
>
> May somebody kindly mention how many public comments are foreseen and what
> are the period(s) deadline for comments
>
> It is important that atleast two public comments to be foreseen each with
> atleast 21 days response period
>
> KAVOUSS
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date: 03/13/15
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150322/794fdc6b/attachment.html>