[governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas?

[Dan Krimm]

Thanks for this clarification, Avri.

So it sounds like the vote was to pass the report through to the Board for
the Los Angeles meeting.  One wonders exactly how the Board will consider
and account for the public comments, of course.

Is there a formal requirement for the Board to account for public comments,
and if so what formal role do the public comments play in the Board
decision?  Can the Board simply ignore them if it chooses, or does it need
to provide some formal response to the comments in the course of making its
decision?

I'm not sure these details are described anywhere on the ICANN web site.
If so I don't know where.

One wonders what the chances are of convincing the Board to send (parts of)
this policy back for further work.  Perhaps a petition is in fact no less
effective than these public comments.

Thanks,
Dan

PS -- Apologies to McTim for continuing this thread under this subject
heading, but it keeps it intact for better or worse.  FWIW, Kieren started
this sub-thread, after generic discussions of CIRs, making specific the
ICANN reference, following a comment apparently of yours:

> In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community",
> that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that
> they complain is "captured".  If CS feels strongly enough about this,
> there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join
> the Internet community fora.

And so on...

Maybe that would have been a good time to change the subject header, but
too late...



At 8:30 AM +0200 9/7/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 7 sep 2007, at 02.41, Danny Younger wrote:
>
>> After the Council finished their discussion on the
>> report's principles, recommendations and
>> implementation elements they proceeded directly to a
>> vote without any structured discussion of the public
>> comments -- the formal review of the public comments
>> as mandated by the agenda never happened.
>
>
>i disagree with this assessment.
>
>the review was done before walking through recommendations as opposed
>to after that. but having listened to the whole call, i expect you
>know that. i thought it was important that the set of views be known
>before we went through each of the recommendations. we also brought
>up the comments during the discussions.   perhaps the discussion
>wasn't as focused on the comments as you would like, but as has been
>said by others, those comments are not only part of the record, they
>are part of the materials that board will be able to consider  in
>deciding whether they agree with the recommendations.  and it will
>the board's option to send the package, or any one oof the
>recommendations back to the council to ask for clarification or to
>tell us to do further work.
>
>i know you think the council should have thrown out several of the
>recommendations based on public comments.  it is true, the public
>comments did not serve as a veto.  but i do deny that the council
>members were  not aware of the comments and did not consider them in
>casting their votes.  i expect the board will also consider them.
>
>i do think that ICANN's GNSO policy development process needs to be
>fixed and needs to incorporate the review of public comments much
>earlier in the process.  and there are better ways of incorporating
>public views into the process.  but i deny the accusation that the
>GNSO council doesn't care or does not listen.
>
>a.
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance