[CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-members] about the CCWG 30-day comment period

[Roelof Meijer]

I am wondering: when Adam writes ³we² our group seems to think he means
³ICANN staff².
I do not think ICANN staff has set our time table. I read Adam¹s "You will
remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in
Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30 April.²
as us, the CCWG, deciding on it.

Completely off-topic, but so ridiculous that I cannot help myself: if
ICANN senior staff are now described as ³ICANN GlobalLeaders², what would
that make its CEO? ICANN Leader of the Universe? OMG...

Cheers,

Roelof




On 06-05-15 00:04, "J. William Semich" <bill at nunames.nu> wrote:

>
>I agree with Dr. Lisse 100%.
>
>ICANN staff must not set the timetables for any consensus process. Nor
>should any committee (co-)chairs.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Semich
>.NU Domain
>
>On May 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>
>> 
>> So,
>> 
>> now ICANN staff decides what comment period is acceptable.
>> 
>> Outrageously unacceptable and objected to.
>> 
>> I am still waiting for the response to my request to be provided with
>>the notes or emails where this was discussed and approved by the CCWG.
>> 
>> el
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>> 
>>> On May 5, 2015, at 21:41, Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Note on behalf of Thomas, Leon and Mathieu about the CCWG proposal
>>>30-day
>>> public comment period.
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> We have seen comments about the 30-day public comment period.  You will
>>> remember this has been our intention since we discussed planning in
>>> Istanbul, and we concluded this discussion on the CCWG call of 30
>>>April.
>>> The outcome was to propose the first public comment should be for 30
>>>days,
>>> which would allow time for us to prepare a response for the ICANN
>>>meeting
>>> in  Buenos Aires.  It is particularly important that we are able to
>>> respond to the dependencies identified by the CWG-Stewardship.
>>> 
>>> Recognizing that the shorter public comment is not ideal for a subject
>>>of
>>> such importance to the community, we also took into account the fact
>>>that
>>> we will to hold a second public comment period some weeks after ICANN53
>>> when we will seek input on any outstanding issues and provide details
>>>and
>>> explanation prompted by discussions with the community from the first
>>> public comment and during ICANN53.
>>> 
>>> The public comment announcement includes the remark "Because this
>>>(first)
>>> Public Comment period is less than the required 40-day minimum, it has
>>> been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders."  The term Global Leaders
>>>is a
>>> reference to senior members of the ICANN staff and the condition was
>>> created to ensure that a check existed so that a single ICANN
>>>department
>>> would not depart from the standard default time period without broader
>>> senior staff input.  The public comment guidelines and procedures are
>>> available on the public wiki
>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48344695
>>> 
>>> Warm regards,
>>> 
>>> Thomas, Leon and Mathieu
>>> CCWG co-chairs
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>
>