Fwd: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation

[Mary Wong]

In addition to Adam's suggestion (extract below), how would folks feel about adding something along the lines of "It is also important to bear in mind that these communications should complement, and not substitute for, direct public engagement with the ICANN Board."
 
Please note that comments can be submitted only up till 11.59 tonight (I am assuming this is either PST or EST - can anyone confirm it?)
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 


>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 2/4/2009 11:57 AM >>>
Important that the person asking has the 
opportunity to agree to having their question 
taken in that way.

Perhaps add a sentence so the relevant part reads:

It is also noted that ICANN staff, under 
direction of the Chairman, allowed for questions 
to be posted after the Meeting and subsequently 
answered by appropriate staff. The GNSO Council 
applauds this innovation particularly with the 
staff providing responses to direct questions. 
*However, questions should only be deferred in 
this way with the agreement of the person asking 
the question during the open forum.*

Make sense?

Adam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090204/2c5e13ae/attachment.html>