[IOT] FW: QUESTION FOR ACTION FW: [Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

I think two weeks is fine.  What is the rush here?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> David,
>
> If the BC follows a procedure similar to IPC, any comment is supposed to
> be on the general mailing list for a week after it is drafted (by a
> drafting team, typically), so that the membership can read and comment and
> revise the comment before it is submitted.  (Sometimes, the period is
> shorter than a week, due to a variety of circumstances, but IPC aims for a
> week.)  A one week extension may not allow sufficient time for the comment
> to be revised and then put on the list.  I think it's fair to assume that
> Steve would not ask for such an extension lightly, since he has been in our
> shoes (and your shoes) before. So, I think we should give his request every
> benefit of the doubt.
>
> I would suggest (a) a dialogue with Steve about the shortest time he and
> the BC can get this done, and (b) you figure out the latest we can receive
> it without pushing our timeline back (and any subsequent "knock-on" effects
> from that push-back), and share that with Steve.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:33 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear IRP IOT members,
>>
>>
>>
>> I just saw this note this morning.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am tempted to agree a ONE WEEK extension later today but wanted you to
>> see this first.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would give a requested extension but would also allow us a good
>> chance to look at comments and staff write-up at our next meeting Feb. 9
>> th.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have concerns please let me know. Because of the short time frame
>> with deadline looming I am planning to agree the one week extension later
>> today – sorry this is such a short-fuse item.
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> David McAuley
>>
>> International Policy Manager
>>
>> Verisign Inc.
>>
>> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Karen Mulberry [mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:24 PM
>> *To:* McAuley, David; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; Thomas
>> Rickert (thomas at rickert.net)
>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] QUESTION FOR ACTION FW: [Ext] Request for 2-week
>> extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures
>>
>>
>>
>> I have just received a request for an additional extension to the IOT-IRP
>> Public Comment period on the IRP Supplemental Procedures.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know if you wish to grant this request for an additional
>> extension to the Public Comment period.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> *Karen Mulberry*
>>
>> Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>> *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 7:15 PM
>> *To: *Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org>
>> *Cc: *BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period
>> on IRP Supplemental Procedures
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Karen.
>>
>>
>>
>> As the staff contact for Updated Supplementary Procedures for the
>> IRP[icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_irp-2Dsupp-2Dprocedures-2D2016-2D11-2D28-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=Q_fMdPzWh_dPIFRoT0_RCyUZ-mS0xeE4EeQTxa_ckQI&m=WCws5VokF-q1trXfNjFDT4Bd1j1VoFNdzrbyH2mc7G0&s=ytvyKVEZ_Bqi2Qmydd-mrhrGmFwdVIYIN8R6fPb125k&e=>,
>> we are contacting you to formally request a 2-week extension to the public
>> comment period.
>>
>>
>>
>> The period is scheduled to end 25-Jan, and we are requesting an extension
>> to 8-Feb, at the earliest.
>>
>>
>>
>> The justification to grant this extension is that we only just received a
>> legal analysis and recommendations for the proposed procedures.    Sidley
>> Austin, attorneys to the CCWG, prepared a legal memo (attached) that was
>> shared with the BC membership only last week (12-Jan).   We’d like to
>> incorporate some of Sidley’s analysis, and need additional time to have BC
>> members review the changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not see any great urgency to the adoption of IRP procedures, so I
>> hope this request can be granted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Glad to field questions you may have about this request.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> Vice chair for policy coordination
>>
>> ICANN Business Constituency
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IOT mailing list
>> IOT at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IOT mailing list
> IOT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20170120/e4b74e8f/attachment-0001.html>