Re: [alac] verisign-settlement

[<alice@xxxxxxx>]

I think we need to make comments on the report/comments as soon as possible 
reiterate ALAC's position.
alice wanjira

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:15 AM
Subject: 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=
> 'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' 
> dc:format='application/pdf'><dc:creator><rdf:
> Seq><rdf:li>pritz</rdf:li></rdf:Seq></dc:creator><dc:title><rdf:Alt><rdf:li 
> xml:
> lang='x-default'>Microsoft Word - COM analysis of comments _11 
> Dec-v3_.doc</rdf:
> li></rdf:Alt></dc:title></rdf:Description>
>
> --Wendy
>
> 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).
> >
> > 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
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org