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 > >