Below, Bruce's response to our opposition to open the Council meeting
on gTLD to public comment, in D.C.

--- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Subject: RE: [council] Washington meeting: NCUC position
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:10:04 +1100
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Hello Mawaki,
> 
> I thank you for effectively raising the concerns being expressed
> within
> the NCUC.
> 
> > 
> > 1/ Given this particular and sensitive issue of gTLD, which 
> > has been on and on for a good while, we have heard the same 
> > arguments for and against gTLDs for years, and what is most 
> > needed is not more comment, but decisions (at least on 
> > positions and recommendations, as far as the GNSO Council is 
> > concerned). The idea that we, the Council and our 
> > Constituencies, don't know what our position is, or need to 
> > hear more, does not convince none of my constituents. 
> > Instead, it is beleived that what we really need to do is to 
> > put our heads together and come up with a common and final
> position.
> 
> 
> 
> It does surprise me to hear that we should be limiting public input
> to
> one mechanism - online comments to the website, especially when
> this has
> not really been found to be adequate over the past several years.
> 
> It is also concerning that we should be saying that we don't want
> to
> listen to people because we have already made up our minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 2/ And to better achieve this, we need not to expose 
> > ourselves to further pressure and lobbying from interest 
> > groups, which my fellow constituents beleive is going to 
> > happen in D.C. In effect, we are concerned that opening this 
> > meeting in Washington to public comment turn this into 
> > lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by Washington 
> > insiders who are far to reflect the variety of possible and 
> > existing positions on this sensitive issue of value to all of 
> > us, both as ICANN bodies and globally.
> 
> Remember that it is the Council that makes its recommendations to
> the
> Board.  This seems to be implying that you are concerned that
> Council
> members are not sufficiently experienced to judge input based on
> its
> merits rather than its source (ie inferring that the Council would
> consider a comment made in Washington on a higher basis simply
> because
> of the location where the comment was made).  
> 
> The mere fact that this issue is of concern to members of the NCUC
> -
> would imply that the NCUC Concil members will be vigilant to ensure
> that
> all input is treated appropriately based on its merit rather than
> who
> has submitted it or where it is submitted.
> 
> It seems however that in the Council teleconference we may need to
> separate the decision on a public comment forum, from the core
> objective
> which is to make progress on the policy work.   
> 
> The decisions that need to be made seem to be in order:
> 
> (1) should we hold a physical meeting between now and Wellington to
> move
> things forward on policy efficiently
> 
> (2) if so, where and when
> 
> (3) if we hold a physical meeting, should we offer the oppportunity
> for
> oral public comments
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>