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

Sat Jan 21 19:32:17 UTC 2017

Steve replied to my e-mail last night saying that one week extension would be helpful - said knowing our hope to have a staff report available for our meeting on the 9th.

I told Steve we would agree a one week extension.

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

From: iot-bounces at icann.org [mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:19 PM
To: mike at rodenbaugh.com; gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Cc: iot at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] FW: QUESTION FOR ACTION FW: [Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures

Thanks Greg and Mike,

I have tried contacting Steve with no success so far so I just sent him an e-mail in this respect.

We have an IOT meeting scheduled Feb 9th and there should be a good turnout now that we have happily gotten off the Friday schedule – at least for this meeting.

A one week extension would still allow us to have a staff report on comments for our meeting on the 9th – that will prove quite useful. A two week extension would not allow us to have that report.

Here is my thinking.

Now that we have a new IRP bylaw in effect the community could use the new procedures as quickly as reasonably possible. The comment period has been open since Nov. 29th (opened 23:59 UTC on the 28th) and a one week extension will have that period run 65 days.

Steve knows from my e-mail that a one week extension would be forthcoming – so that gives him 12 days (not counting today) to get the comment in.

I am hoping that will be sufficient. I hope to be in contact with Steve by tonight.

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 3:51 PM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: McAuley, David; iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] FW: QUESTION FOR ACTION FW: [Ext] Request for 2-week extension of public comment period on IRP Supplemental Procedures

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<mailto: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<mailto: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. 9th.

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<tel:(703)%20948-4154>

From: Karen Mulberry [mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org<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<mailto: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<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 7:15 PM
To: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org<mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>>
Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot

_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto: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/20170121/ab1f43b7/attachment-0001.html>