ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

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

Re: [alac] verisign-settlement

  • To: "ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] verisign-settlement
  • From: <alice@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:34:27 +0300

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:


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

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.


-- 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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy