Monthly ICANN Open Public Comments Reminder

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think that is a terrific idea Sam, folks play that game all the time 
and it is annoying.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2017-04-07 21:39, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> 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/20170407/05480986/attachment.htm>