I am afraid this kind of reminder is insufficient.
Consider what you are asking us all to do (along with wading through
the daily e-mail):
* remember the comment mechanism (or find out about it for the first
time)
* check the website on a regular basis for publication of drafts (and
to be sure there are no changes)
* imagine when a comment period for each publication might likely
expire
* plan accordingly and hope we got it right
Sorry but none of us on the list (to my knowledge) is a mind-reader.
Is it too much to ask that each publication include an explicit
declaration of a comment period (and mechanism as applicable)? Not
all of the documents you would have us comment on have such a date
embedded within. Only one of them has the date in a prominent place
at the top of the document.
And in the current instance, what you refer to as a 'reminder' comes
very late in the game. As stated by several people, 3 days (or less)
is simply not enough time for constructive comment. To be useful,
that reminder would have been sent with at least a week left.
I think not.
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote:
>
> 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]
--
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]
