[Internal-cg] announcement re community comments
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Thu Jan 29 19:16:50 UTC 2015
Just want to reiterate my concerns that this could "open the floodgates," for complaints, particularly when the Names community submits its proposal. Once that is submitted, will there be an equivalent "window" for complaint submission?
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 13:07
To: "wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Cc: ICG List <internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] announcement re community comments
The bulk of the time during the Feb 6-7 meeting will be devoted to assessing the two proposals we have received. So for comments to be considered during those assessments we need to have them before the meeting.
I don't view this as a short nor absolute deadline. We put the RFP out in September and it included the notice about community comments - both how to submit them and that all interested parties should direct their comments to the communities themselves first and foremost. So everyone has known for a very long time how to send comments. Furthermore, we received both of these proposals two or more weeks ago, so anyone who was for whatever reason waiting to send their comments to us has had plenty of time to do that too. And we're not saying that we're closing down the forum, just that if comments are to be incorporated into the initial assessment phase, we need to see them before we do the assessments. We have many further phases of assessment and comment planned in our timeline.
On Jan 29, 2015, at 10:56 AM, wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
Alissa, just to understand: what is the relatively short - and absolute -deadline good for?
Today at the CWG meeting we have heard from their revised timeline which will affect the assembly and finalization process.
In this context I wonder whether we shouldn't ask for responses by 04 Feb but leave also an opportunity for further comments.
Sent from my personal phone
Am 29.01.2015 um 19:38 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>:
I took an action item on the call to draft a public announcement about timely receipt of community comments. Here it is:
The ICG's Request for Proposals <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> from the operational communities noted the following:
"While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time via email to icg-forum at icann.org<mailto:icg-forum at icann.org>."
The ICG will next be discussing the protocol parameters and numbers proposals on February 6. As such, the ICG requests that community comments concerning those two proposals or the processes used to create them be received by February 4 at 23:59 UTC. Comments received after that time will not be considered as part of Step I of the ICG's Proposal Assembly and Finalization Process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf> for the protocol parameters and numbering proposals.
I'd like to get this posted by January 30 at 20:00 UTC, so please send your feedback as soon as possible.
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg