<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The ICANN staff recognizes the intent behind this resolution
and we will begin to think through any implications associated with this recommendation.
As a threshold matter, it may be helpful to mention that many structures within
ICANN have pre-defined requirements for conducting public comments, including
the time frames required for soliciting public comment. These differ
today by entity, many requirements are specified in various bylaws provisions
applicable to various structures, including requirements applicable to
Board-initiated solicitations for public comment. The current bylaws
provisions applicable to GNSO Council-related solicitations for public comment
are specific to the GNSO Council.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Staff has also heard concerns from some Council members about
the volume of reports and materials produced by ICANN staff (and possibly working
group reports as well) just prior to and during ICANN meetings, because of the
challenges associated with reviewing and being prepared to comment on late-breaking
documents and reports. For example, staff was directed to complete
the registration abuse issues report prior to the Cairo ICANN meeting
specifically so that the report could be discussed in Cairo, but,
understandably, many Council members were unable to read the report in time for
a timely discussion. Thus, it may also be appropriate to consider whether
deadlines for other deliverables should also be extended accordingly to further
address Council member concerns.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Staff looks forward to discussing all this further with
Council members.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks, Liz<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>