| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Time to stuff the comments box
posted by michael on Monday September 28 2009, @02:31PM
ehasbrouck writes "Faced with an actual bottom-up consensus on one of its "out of nowhere" policy proposals, what does ICANN do?
Extend the comment period, of course, to give itself time to round up some of its cronies and get them to submit comments endorsing whatever the staff or the people in the secret smoke-filled room have proposed.
Case in point: the latest proposal for changes to the Bylaws "to Improve Accountability", which prompted rare unanimity of rejection from a small but diverse and significant cadre of commenters from the ICANN stakeholder "community" ICANN so often prattles about as the source of its policies.
ICANN says the 60-day extension of the comment period announced today (but backdated to last Friday) is "to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views". But it's hard to take that seriously as the real reason for re-opening the comment period, since ICANN has never previously bothered with similar translations, or hesitated to make a decision because the proposal hadn't been translated into any language but English.
Look for endorsements of the proposal from ICANN's stooges, coming soon to a comment mailbox in Marina Del Rey.
Or, if you want real accountability, you now have until 27 November 2009 to send your own letter of objection to iic-proposed-bylaws@icann.org. If you need ideas for what to say about what's wrong with the ICANN proposals, see my comments here, or any of the other comments here -- all of them give good reasons for ICANN not to approve the current proposal."
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Time to stuff the comments box
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 3 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
I haven't gotten any answer to the questions [icann.org] I asked ICANN about who on the staff overruled the decision of the Board to set the comment period at 60 days, or what authority they had to do so. But the announcement [icann.com] page has reverted to the previous version of 29 July 2009, as though the version of 28 September 2009 (backdated as 25 September 2009) re-opening the comment period had never existed. Why admit you broke the rules when you can re-write history and pretend it never happened? I'm still waiting for an explanation of who on the staff was responsible, or what they claim to have been the basis for their authority as a staff member to overrule an explicit vote of the Board. It's a really clear indication of who the staff thinks is in charge, and the extent of their respect (not!) for the Board and for the prcedural rules in the Bylaws.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Today there's a new version of the announcement page [icann.org]. It was posted last night or this morning (30 September 2009 or 1 October 2009), but it's backdated to 29 September 2009.
Today's version says, "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views. Two proposed accountability measures have been posted by direction of the Board for a total of 120 days of public comments, from 27 July 2009 through 27 November 2009."
I *think* the references to 27 October 2009 are typos, intended to be 27 November 2009. But there's no further detail about the "direction of the Board" referred to in the latest re-write. The only record of Board action is the resolution [icann.org] setting the comment period at 60 days.
There was a Board "meeting" by telephone yesterday (improperly closed to public auditing, as usual, in violation of the transparency Bylaw). Minutes haven't yet been posted, but this issue wasn't on the agenda [icann.org], as it would have been required to be if action was contemplated.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
