<div>So since this is about accountability, it strikes me that the two ICANN staff who agreed to a shorter public comment period should be named.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I also think one of them should always be the Manager of Public Participation since that is their job.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This is pretty obvious and useful accountability. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kieren</div>
<div class="mailbox_signature">
<br>-<br>[sent through phone]</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p>On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span> wrote:<br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><p>So,
<br><br>now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable.
<br><br>Outrageously unacceptable and objected to.
<br><br>I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG.
<br><br>rl
<br><br>--
<br>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
<br><br>> On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote:
<br>>
<br>> Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal 30-day
<br>> public comment period.
<br>>
<br>> Hi everyone,
<br>>
<br>> We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period. You will
<br>> remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in
<br>> Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April.
<br>> The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30 days,
<br>> which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN meeting
<br>> in Buenos Aires. It is particularly important that we are able to
<br>> respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
<br>>
<br>> Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject of
<br>> such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact that
<br>> we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53
<br>> when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details and
<br>> explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first
<br>> public comment and during ICANN53.
<br>>
<br>> The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this (first)
<br>> Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has
<br>> been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders." The term Global Leaders is a
<br>> reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was
<br>> created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN department
<br>> would not depart from the standard default time period without broader
<br>> senior staff input. The public comment guidelines and procedures are
<br>> available on the public wiki
<br>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
<br>>
<br>> Warm regards,
<br>>
<br>> Thomas, Leon and Mathieu
<br>> CCWG co-chairs
<br>> _______________________________________________
<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<br>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<br></p></blockquote></div><br>