Re: [alac] verisign-settlement
Thanks Bret for your quick take which is helpful.
At 22:44 05/12/12 -0800, you 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.)
Don't worry. Rather, we appreciate your assessment, as we do not grasp the details
of English languages.
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).
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.