Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process.
Let me explain a little about the process we're working under. The advisory
group was asked to assist the ERC in drafting certain implementation details
for the Blueprint for Reform. There shouldn't be any great surprises in what
we're doing. The Blueprint adopted by the Board said that the policy process
should take 60-90 days, and we are trying to create a set of guidelines for
initiating and completing a policy process within that time frame.
In the interest of time, the ERC thought it would be advisable to have a
small number of people work with it to draft the implementation details.
From the ERC's point of view, I believe the alternative was to do the
drafting itself, not open it up for wide participation. Again, the issue
right now is expediency. The ERC will have a general public comment period
after the drafting is complete.
That said, while the advisory group was specifically designed, for
efficiency's sake, as a closed drafting group, there's nothing that prevents
any of its members in their personal capacity from consulting with others to
inform their comments. I'm certainly willing to do that. As I said before,
there's no great secret to what we're doing. If anyone would like to see the
drafts as they are prepared, please drop me a personal note off-list
(firstname.lastname@example.org). If you want to send *me* comments about the drafts,
I'll take them into consideration when I submit my own comments to the
group. I only ask that people asking for a copy not re-circulate it and not
send unsolicited comments to other members of the advisory group, the Names
Council, or the Board. I'm open to assistance, but I don't want my
willingness to talk with people to become an unexpected burden on the other
volunteer members of the group.
Keep in mind that ICANN will have a general comment period on what we
recommend at the end. We're also constrained to work within the bounds of
what the Board already decided when it approved the Blueprint. Comments
about what the Board decided and forecast in the Blueprint are always
welcome at the ICANN comment Board.
I hope that point of clarification helps.
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> However, with all due respect for the advisory group's members, I
> don't think that the process used by that group itself is setting
> a good precedent. To begin with, it would be great if the group
> could just make available its drafts, so the public wouldn't
> have to rely on snippets from telephone conferences and
> comments from individual members of the advisory group. What's
> happening currently is certainly not the way to go if you want
> informed comments from the public.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html