Monthly ICANN Open Public Comments Reminder

[Sam Lanfranco]

All,

I would like to pick up on one statement in Karanicolas' posting:

                     >>> " Which means that ICANN staff/ICANN legal are 
likely going to wait until just before the deadline to put in their 
response." <<< If that is a strategy by ICANN legal, or others, we can 
try to adopt a policy that says that the comment period closes on a 
certain date, unless there are substantial submission in the last 5 
days, in which the closure is extended one week. That is similar to a 
rule used in live auctions, to deal with last minute "hail mary pass 
like" bids. There may be need for a rule to prevent someone trying to 
run overtime for ever, but that is unlikely and manageable. Sam L. On 
4/7/2017 8:04 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> I have been hesitant to weigh in because I did not participate in this 
> group, so have no idea what you folks discussed. However, frivolous 
> and vexatious clauses are one of my pet peeves, so I will offer some 
> suggestions, they may be off the wall but possibly there could be 
> something useful in there.
>
> cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2017-04-07 18:54, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay in responding - I was on another deadline 
>> today. The Comments have been fairly quiet so far. There's been a 
>> statement from a lawyer from the National Internet Exchange of India 
>> with some fairly loopy ideas (like creating an "abuse team" to handle 
>> vexatious requests). There's also been a very nice letter signed by 
>> 53 NGOs fully endorsing the Recommendations. And that's it. Which 
>> means that ICANN staff/ICANN legal are likely going to wait until 
>> just before the deadline to put in their response.
>> As a result, it may be helpful to reinforce the need for more 
>> transparency from ICANN legal, which I'm sure is going to be 
>> contentious, but which I believe many on this list may see as a 
>> priority. It's great that the Submission mentions the need to respond 
>> despite competing work pressures, as I expect we'll get pushback 
>> there as well.
>> The only other thing I would suggest adding is to maybe reinforce 
>> Recommendation #14, which narrows the public interest test so it 
>> allows for disclosures in the public interest but not any refusal on 
>> public interest grounds. This is actually enormously important. If 
>> ICANN can refuse a request on vague "public interest" grounds, that 
>> basically renders the list of exceptions worthless. Not sure if we'll 
>> get specific pushback from ICANN on that front, but the NIEI lawyer 
>> is arguing against it, so would be helpful to reinforce.
>> Just some thoughts. Looking good so far, in my humble opinion,
>> Michael

-

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170407/d642d94d/attachment.htm>