<div dir="auto">Hello Kavouss,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><Filtered lists that I don't have posting rights to></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Note that my comment was not about supporting 19th because that isn't feasible if we work with 60days but my support was rather for number of days for comment period. Nevertheless more time is definitely better, perhaps a balance would be end of March assuming they are going out for PC this week. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Overall it all depends on the day the PC is set to go live. I would be fine with the PC ending 2weeks (and beyond) after ICANN 58 <br><br>Regards<br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 Jan 2017 2:14 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Seun,</div><div>Tks for your comments </div><div>Pls see below. I am strongly against the deadline of 19 March for public comments see below</div><div><div>Dear Co-Chair,</div><div>Thank you very much for your thoughts and vision.</div><div>However, I am not in favour of closing dates to be 19 March due to the fact that for some SO/AC, physical ( FACE -TO FACE) discussion is considerably contribute to the public comments thus we need to have sufficient time to react. I suggest that the response time to HR be prolonged to end 30 calendre days after the end of ICANN 58. Once again we should not do the thing harshly .Please allow those constituencies like GAC that only in a physical meeting they would be able to have full debate on the matter and then after have sufficient time to respond to the public comment.</div><div>This is a formal proposal.</div><div>I request ,at the same time, our dear chair ,Niels to also not to be in hurry and allow us to think, top reflect and to react .</div><div>Regards</div><div class="m_678315819173174314gmail-yj6qo m_678315819173174314gmail-ajU"><div class="m_678315819173174314gmail-ajR" id="m_678315819173174314gmail-:qp"><img class="m_678315819173174314gmail-ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"><span></span></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-01-18 14:03 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Hello Mathieu,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I will be fine with a public comment that closes 60 days from publication for both HR and jurisdiction. That means the date can't be 19th since the PC has not yet commenced.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That said, I wrote to Niel on the HR list indicating that it might be prudent to get answers to the questions put to the Co-Chairs of the CCWG plenary before putting the FoI to PC. This is because the questions sent in by Niel has a lot to do with the FoI. I don't think we've gotten a response to those questions yet? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If we want to send the document for public comment anyway then it should clearly state in the preamble whether the points listed in Annex12 were considered during the development of the FoI.<br><br>Regards<br><div dir="auto" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_678315819173174314h5">On 18 Jan 2017 11:50, "Mathieu Weill" <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="m_678315819173174314h5"><div lang="FR" vlink="purple" link="blue"><div class="m_678315819173174314m_5043451148914976215m_-3602946125107478904WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Colleagues, <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Although it is uncertain exactly when the questionnaire for Jurisdiction and the public comment for Human Rights will actually be published the Co-Chairs would suggest that the closing date for both of these be after the Copenhagen meeting. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The reasoning behind this is that at best the standard 42 days consultation period would end immediately prior to the Copenhagen - this would imply chartering organizations and community members would be considering this while they are preparing for Copenhagen - which as Cheryl Langdon-Orr has pointed out on our last plenary is not an ideal situation. Additionally staff would not have enough time to prepare the report on these for our consideration in Copenhagen.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Additionally the jurisdiction questionnaire is meant to be considered by a wider community and as such it would be good to extend the standard period to 60 days to allow everyone ample opportunity to answer the questionnaire.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As such we would recommend that the closing period for the Human Rights public consultation be Sunday 19 March 23:59 UTC and that the Jurisdiction questionnaire request responses within 60 days of the initial publication.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you in advance for your feedbacks on this proposal. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thomas, Leon & Mathieu</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community<wbr>@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/accountability-cross-c<wbr>ommunity</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div>