[IOTF] Process for public consultation

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Fri Jul 8 07:50:33 UTC 2016


Dear Trang,

 

Lise and I reviewed this and it seems to be a reasonable approach.

 

However, there is a concern that the CWG may not be / be able to be
responsive enough to deal with the comments as and when they come up.

Key here will be to synchronise the planning of CWG meetings to with the
public comment period/s that require/s CWG input. For this reason, I have
copied Grace into this mail.

It may be that we can use the IOTF to good effect here but we will need to
be careful not to leave the CWG out / behind.

 

So, we understand the reason for the alternative suggestion below and will
try to work with it.

 

Thank-you,

 

 

Lise & Jonathan

 

 

From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org] 
Sent: 08 July 2016 06:42
To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu>; iotf at icann.org
Subject: Re: [IOTF] Process for public consultation

 

Dear Lise,

 

Thank you for your note. This process for the most part sounds good and is
consistent with the standard practice for ICANN public comment periods. The
one area that we are concerned about is step #4 occurring at the end of the
process. The concern that we have is the potential for this step to create
multiple rounds of reviews at the end of the process when timing is very
tight. There might be ways to fold that step into an earlier part of the
process to achieve the intent of the step and to ensure that the substantive
discussions occur before any documents are finalized.

 

One possible approach may be that if any comments submitted are identified
as requiring discussions with the CWG because it is not clear whether the
comment is in alignment with or not in alignment with the CWG proposal, we
would have those discussions as soon as possible, potentially even during
the public comment period. The discussions would inform ICANN in performing
the analysis and updating of the document to the agreed upon approach. Draft
language to reflect how the comment would be incorporated could be exchanged
with the CWG and Sidley during the comment process and as the analysis is
being performed so as to eliminate the need for an approval step at the end
of the process. If comments are submitted close to the end of the comment
period, we could hold a call with the CWG right after the public comment
period closes. This would allow for a timely completion of the analysis and
updating of the document to incorporate comments received.

 

This approach approximates the approach that we used for the ICANN Bylaws,
which allowed us to complete the analysis and updating of the document 5
days after the close of the comment period. This is the same number of days
that we have provided for ICANN to perform analysis and updating of the PTI
documents that will go out for public comment. Having experience with and
seeing this work, we wanted to offer it for consideration as one possible
alternative to the last step of the process.

 

Warm regards,

 

Trang

 

From: <iotf-bounces at icann.org <mailto:iotf-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of
Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu <mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu> >
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM
To: "iotf at icann.org <mailto:iotf at icann.org> " <iotf at icann.org
<mailto:iotf at icann.org> >
Subject: [IOTF] Process for public consultation

 

Hi Trang and Yuko,

 

At the IOTF call yesterday you asked about guidance on how to proceed with
the different proposals after the public consultation period. Jonathan and I
have discussed what we find to be the best procedure. We also find that it
is good to have the procedure documented.

 

The process should be the following:

 

1.      The implementation team (staff) run the public comment period

2.      Staff gather the comments and publish the comments in a document

3.      Staff propose a revised version of the original proposal with the
comments incorporated

4.      CWG review and sign off the revised proposal.

 

If you have any questions or concerns to the procedure above please don't
hesitate to get back to either Jonathan or me.

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

Lise

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/attachments/20160708/fd229806/attachment.html>


More information about the IOTF mailing list