Re: [alac] verisign-settlement
I agree, they tend to downplay the opposition to the settlement by not indicating who or how many expressed a given opinion, and thus create the appearance of balance between pro and con even when the comments skewed heavily con. I'm not surprised, though, given that these reports come from the same staff who negotiated the settlement agreement in the first place.
Fun with `strings`
37 0 obj<</ModDate(D:20051211184423-08'00')/CreationDate(D:20051211184423-08'00'
)/Title(Microsoft Word - COM summary of comments _11 Dec_.doc)/Creator(PScript5.
dll Version 5.2.2)/Producer(Acrobat Distiller 6.0 \(Windows\))/Author(pritz)>>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:e75514c8-016e-49c1-832e-90a90e3602a5' xmlns:dc=
lang='x-default'>Microsoft Word - COM analysis of comments _11 Dec-v3_.doc</rdf:
At 10:44 PM 12/12/2005 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:
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).