I would suggest it doesn't hurt to do both, which I've done myself.

And, "something" is better than nothing.  It's unclear how ICANN actually
uses public comments in its "back end" policy processes (as demonstrated by
the example of the comments on the New gTLD policy, which did not affect
the GNSO Council vote in any noticeable manner, and whether they will
affect the Board's considerations remains to be seen), so I think all
pathways to affect the process should be used as much as possible.  I would
not discourage anyone from trying anything that could support the cause.

So, I would urge people not to view these potential actions as "either/or"
-- there's no reason that one should have to choose between these tactics.

Use 'em all.

Dan


At 10:46 PM -0400 10/26/07, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>It would be better to send in your comments individually than to sign on
>to those of a single organization.
>
>
>From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:41 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [new title] Public comments for Whois - TIMELY!
>
>* IMPORTANT *,
>Marc and EPIC have given us a great gift.  EPIC sat down, analyzed the
>Whois Working Group (WG) report, and wrote an important set of comments.
>I will circulate the text in my next message, but in a nutshell, EPIC says
>that the Whois WG came to some very important agreements that move the
>Whois process forward (at last!):  the WG agree to protect the privacy of
>individual registrants (hooray!), accept the OPOC proposal (operational
>point of contact) and set out the responsibilities of the OPOC.  These are
>great comments!
>
>Please help EPIC and NCUC!  Please sign on to the comments of EPIC by
>sending Marc your name and organization at
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Also, please submit your own comments.  We are seeing so many comments
>from the largest companies in the world that we need more entries on our
>side.  Take some of Marc's points, or even write a letter to the comments
>saying that you endorse and support the EPIC comments and the Whois WG
>work. 
>
>7 years of hard work is on the line.  NCUC has fought this issue for so long.
>Please help!
>Kathy
>
>
><<Our hope is to drive the ICANN board to a resolution of 
>
>the issue, which we understand they are very interested 
>in reaching.
>
>If you would like to sign-on, please send a note. We need
>to finalize in the next day or two.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marc.
>
>=
>
>On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:45 PM, <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>wrote:
>
>
>It doesn't surprise me.  They hate the idea of privacy.
>Would anyone like to work with me on a set of comments that organizations
>in NCUC might submit?
>
>Would anyone submit comments if we wrote an outline of the key issues and
>the supports for the direction of the Whois WG and our NCUC
>representatives (pro-OPOC, pro-privacy)?
>
>Best, Kathy
>
>
>Another orchestrated campaign by the Intellectual
>Property Community -- see the posts at
><http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2007/index.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2007/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>See what's new at <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>AOL.com
>and <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>Make AOL
>Your Homepage.
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1095 - Release Date:
>10/26/2007 7:54 PM
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1095 - Release Date:
>10/26/2007 7:54 PM