Question 1: How should the Forum be configured?

Part A:

a) to permit only a single static reply cycle (15 days) at the end of the original 30-day comment period; or

b) dynamically so that comments and replies are interspersed (threaded) throughout the open period? In this option, would it be helpful to add a short reply cycle (length?) so that there is an opportunity to respond to posts made in the waning days of the original comment period?

Part B:

In either case above, if there are no comments received after the initial 30-day period, should there still be a 15-day reply cycle or should it be cancelled if there are no comments registered?

Part C:

If you do not agree with the proposed cycle lengths, i.e., minimum 30 days followed by minimum of 15 days, please provide the lengths you think would be more appropriate.

  • No labels

8 Comments

  1. Frederic Guillemaut

    A very straight answer :

    Part A : i choose option a. Comments, then reply, no thread to avoid useless / anonymous debates on some 'hot topics'..xxx comments were a summum.

    If there are no comments, there should be no reply cycle.

    1. Jonathan Zuck

      What he said

  2. Sokol Haxhiu

    I think Option A is a better one.  In my view, there should be clear deadlines for any period (whether it is for comments or rebutts) and in this case everybody will understand the consequences of not respecting the deadlines. 

  3. Sokol Haxhiu

    Regarding the cycle period, I agree with Part A, to permit a static reply cycle 15 days at the end of the 30-day comment period.

    In case there are no comments provided during the initial 30-day period, I would propose for extending the deadline with 7 more days and reducing the reply cycle to 7 days. In total, still there are going to be 45 days for comments and replies.  Extending the deadline for comments simply means that you provide all necessary time for making sure that any comments is sent and taken into consideration.

    Thanks,

    Sokol

  4. Ken Bour

    Focus Group:

    It seems as though group members favor a static Comment/Reply structure vs. dynamic (threaded). It would be helpful if you would share your rationale, that is, what do you perceive to be the pros vs. cons? 

    As a result of the ATRT's recommendations, there is a renewed interest in re-engineering the Public Comments forum, especially the technical software solution currently operational at ICANN.org. That technology is old, only accepts e-mail input, and is inflexible. We have been experimenting with ICANN's Wiki as a potential replacement and have been impressed with its features, robustness, and flexibility (including such possibilities as registering for e-mail alerts on topics of interest). 

    One of the advantages that I see in the threaded format is that, even if we had a 30-day comment period followed by a 15-day reply cycle, a contributor would have the flexibility to add his/her reply at any time and could insert it directly underneath the comment to which it applies vs. having to quote or otherwise indicate the original poster, date, time. I think it would be easier for someone to follow the logical thought process because the comments and replies would be interleaved vs. separated. It should also be easier for Staff to summarize the points because they would not have to reassemble and rearrange the submissions in order to determine what reply went with which comment. 

    Are you opposed to a threaded discussion environment (like the one we are having here)? If so, it would help us to understand the reasons. Frederic mentioned (above) "useless/anonymous debates"; however, if participation required preregistration, such anonymous postings could be avoided.

    Thank you,

    Ken

    Thank you,

    Ken

  5. Filiz Yilmaz

    Dear all,

    Thanks for your valuable comments on Topic 2, too.

    One of the points raised was about what is done with the comments received during Public Comment periods. Ken already answered this to some extend that ICANN staff is now creating a report following a unified template and we publish it on the Public Comment Forum box. Note the new Recently Closed Public Comments page indicates now if this Report has been published or not:

    http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/closed-en.htm

    Most of the time a Board decision is required after public comments. This point is raised in ATRT recommendations 7. You may want to see: http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm

    There will be a Webinar on all ATRT recommendations on 31st August 2011. See the announcement at:

    http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17aug11-en.htm

    Finally, elements required for “meaningful participation and effective discussions” was also another point raised during this focus group process. This is a very important point and I think having this materialized is a shared responsibility within the ICANN Multi-stakeholder model. While some of us are working towards certain tools and mechanisms to facilitate a discussion medium, users of this medium have the real direct influence on the meaningfulness of their own participation and others’ too. One of the main pillars of doing so is bringing the relevant arguments for support or objections while discussing a particular issue. I believe ICANN Community will benefit from your help in having this understanding spread around, as active members of the community. We hope to work on this notion to further facilitate improvements on it in the future too.

    These were also touched upon within an independent review of ICANN's accountability and transparency and later approved by ICANN Board in 2008. You may want to see:

    http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/community.htm#f

    http://www.icann.org/en/documents/

    (Click "Code of Conduct")

    Thanks again!

    Filiz

  6. Don Blumenthal

    Sorry for the delay in contributing. I'll leave explanation at "unavoidable distractions."

    In a simple world, I like the idea of a reply period with dynamic give and take, although given typical last minute filings, I'm not sure that static vs dynamic will make much difference. A reply period would provide comment analyses from the community that could be useful complements or supplements to staff considerations.

    As a caveat, any response system should be moderated, which obviously raises political issues. However, I'm concerned that 1) responses to others too often lead to attacks rather than substantive contributions and 2) commentors might use the extended reply period to post initial submissions. The obvious way around 2 is to have a set 45 day period for posts and give-and-take.

    I would not have a reply period if no comments were submitted. Extensions to comment periods should be considered as a separate matter. An automatic additional 15 days is an invitation to wait until the last minute and file "late" if no other submissions have been received

    Appropriate comment periods could vary with complexity of issues but a predictable standard is best for the comment process. 30 days is reasonable.

  7. Frederic Guillemaut

    Just a last comment :

    When discussing issues face to face, people have to behave. Using the web to discuss things takes away that ' politeness' for some people.

    So allowing people to write down their comments is fine, but allowing them to carry on on a discussion they already had online is a waste of time and ressorces.

    This is why i think a static period of comment, then some replies, is fine.

    The initial discussions must be made in person during physical meetings. 

    I hope this clarifies my position.

    Thank you, I liked working this way, on this project.