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

[James M. Bladel]

Agree with Bruce.

J.

On 5/5/15, 18:03 , "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

>I think it would be worth holding the public comment forum itself open up
>to and including Buenos Aires - but just note that the deadline applies
>with respect to responding to any of the comments in time for the Buenos
>Aires meeting.
>
>I would expect for  example that we are unlikely to get GAC feedback
>until after their meeting in Buenos Aires.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Adam Peake
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 6:41 AM
>To: Accountability Cross Community
>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] about the CCWG 30-day comment period
>
>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