ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] verisign-settlement

  • To: <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] verisign-settlement
  • From: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:27:42 +0900

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).

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

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.

I think their rhetoric is "majority across constituencies" and with the exception of ALAC, NCUC, and Biz users, the majority means the service providers, not users, nor registrants. But yes this is quite mis-leading and dangerous as it attempts to quantify different groups into one basket without differentiating the nature of the each subgroups.



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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy