Page History

...

>> AI:  Dev to modify both Main PAD flowchart and Before policy is available for comment flowchart according to WT D meeting discussion on 17 February 20012011.

The WT discussed whether or not it should consult with other existing committees that already deal with issues regarding the public comment period, regarding whether they consider the ideas the WT is proposing (in particular, the idea for a committee to monitor the policy calendar) to have merit. 

...

• Start by ensuring that members of each constituency working within the other constituencies’ WGs (liaisons).  But this is often not enough. 
• Must also make sure that input from an AC does not have less priority than input from any individual or any organization that submits a public comment.  (In fact, input from an AC should perhaps have more priority.)  For example:  Recently, much time has been devoted to considering whether and when the GNSO Council will even accept input from ACs’ WGs.
  • Helps – but is not enough – to make sure there’s diligent communication and input on both community-to-community and staff-to-staff levels.
  • But this is not enough.  Based on Rec. 13, the ALAC and other ACs will need to deal with this issue – but on a higher, ICANN-wide (GNSO-ATRT-SIC-Board) level than WT D.  WT D has done everything it can via Rec. 13.
• Must also make sure that input from all ICANN constituencies has equal priority.
  • An ALAC proposal must be submitted to David Olive to ensure that tasks 13.4, 13.5. and 13.6 are followed through on.
    • It’d be very useful to list these points in the WT’s final reporting.

>>  AI:  Heidi to look into possibility of ensuring tasks 13.4, 13.5, and 13.6 via an ALAC recommendation to David Olive.

...