Re: [alac] verisign-settlement

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am disappointed in these two reports. The biggest disappointment is 
the inexact use of the English language. Both reports rely almost 
entirely on the passive voice. (Non-English speakers, please forgive 
me.) For example, most of the reports are written in the following 
style: "There was acknowledgment of....", "there appears to be broad 
recognition that...", "It was also noted that...", "Concern was 
expressed that...", etc. Such passive statements do not identify the 
speaker, the speaker's interest group (if any), or whether the speaker's 
comment was typical of other comments from the same or other interest 
groups. The fact that the public comments are not sourced or weighted 
serves to obscure a few areas on which I believe the community found 
consensus (such as the relationship between price caps and presumptive 
renewal).

I also have concerns about the accuracy of the report. For example, look 
at this statement:

   "Regarding registrants, there was some expression that there might
   be some negative effects due to the potential price increases, but,
   the majority across constituencies expressed that the increase in
   cost was negligible when compared to the value of a domain name
   registration."

ICANN Staff appears to be saying that a majority of registrants believe 
that the price increase is negligible. That certainly was not the 
statement of the ALAC, and I would be surprised if a "majority" would 
agree with this.

As far as next steps, I'll spend time this week comparing the report to 
the ALAC statement and some of the other statements I found compelling, 
and I hope others will do the same. I hope that we will be able to 
submit a "comment on the comments" sometime soon.

           Bret