I should have made it clearer that my recent message was just a reminder.
The comment mechanism was originally announced on Feb. 8.
At 06:58 PM 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I may not use the same words as Stef but I have to agree with the
>content.
>3 days (or less if you live in the wrong time zone) to prepare a
>formal response (or even coherent comments)on some of these issues is
>totally inappropriate.
>
>As for Stef's "Sahdes of IAHC" commentary, my memory may be fading
>with age but I remember having much more time to comment both formally
>and informally during the IAHC process. There were many aspects of
>IAHC that I disagreed with, but a 3-day comment period is not one of
>them. This part (at least) they appear to have done better than
>ICANN and I feel it's important to set the record straight.
>
>Back to our regular program...
>
>Sorry to be blunt but this process of publishing drafts and seeking
>comment prior to making a decision is not exactly rocket science.
>While it may not be legally necessary (or even useful) to follow govt.
>procedures, anyone who really wants comment on their work should be
>prepared to allow sufficient lead time. If someone needs some
>information by a particular date, it is normal to count backwards and
>find out when to start asking for it in order to give people adequate
>time to respond. It is also normal to expect people to complain if
>you don't give them adequate time. It is also normal for people to
>complain vigourously if you don't have an excellent reason for the
>rush. I am willing to listen, but given that relevant dates have been
>known for a little while, it will be hard to convince me.
>
>As to what to do about this situation, all I can suggest is that we
>not be forced to bear the cost of this situation. That (IMHO) means
>extending the deadline and I know that it means that the people who
>have to read the comments won't have much time before the Singapore
>meeting. That could mean burning lots of midnight oil or it could
>mean information overload. If the latter is true, then decisions
>should not be taken on such issues.
>
>There will be other meetings. The stability of the internet is not at
>stake. Mail is getting through. The trains are running on time.
>There's no rush (although many like myself would like to see something
>finally happen).
>
>Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>
>> By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to
>> obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global
>> Interent Community?
>>
>> Sahdes of IAHC... they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks
>> before reading and ignoring our efforts.
>>
>> But, I suppose this is called trust building, to be able to show NTIA
>> that they have waced their ideas under our noses and tht our responses
>> were to weak to bother with;-)...
>>
>> Cheers...\Stef
>>
>> Cheers...\Stef
>>
>> >From your message Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:46:27 -0800:
>> }
>> }[Sorry for the cross-posting and repetition, but I want to be sure that no
>> }one misses their chance to submit comments on issues to be considered by
>> }the ICANN Board.]
>> }
>> }Please submit comments to ICANN on the proposals for the domain name
>> }supporting organization, draft registrar accreditation guidelines, draft
>> }conflicts of interest policy, and draft reconsideration policy. In order
>> }to ensure that comments will be considered by the ICANN Board in advance of
>> }its March 4 meeting, please submit them before midnight, U.S. West Coast
>> }Time, February 26, following the instructions at:
>> }
>> }http://www.icann.org/drafts.html
>> }
>> }Please submit written comments even if you will be attending the public
>> }forum on March 3 in Singapore, as time for commenting in person at the
>> }meeting will be limited.
>> }
>> }If you have any questions, please send them directly to me at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> }
>> }Thank you,
>> }
>> }Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
>> }Senior Advisor, ICANN
>> }
>
>--
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin
>Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
>J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
