Re: Comments on DRDWG Issue Analysis Report

[Yuri Demchenko <demch@xxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies, need to correct mistake in my previous comment 2

On 15/09/2010 00:36, Yuri Demchenko wrote:
> The DRDWG have done a great job collecting all this information and
> presenting it in the "Issue Analysis Report"
>
> Below are comments on questions specified in the call for comments.
>
> Q1: Is the methodology developed and employed adequate for the purposes
> of the DRDWG?
>
> Comment 1: It is simple but seems to be adequate. The balance is found
> to present information in a neutral unbiased way.
>
> Q2: Do the policy statements identified provide an adequate baseline to
> evaluate the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to
> delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
>
> Comment 2: Yes. The 3 "Policy StatementS" are identified:
> * RFC1591
> * ICP1
> * GAC Principles 2000 and 2005
>
> In the report there is a good analysis and reference to RFC1591 and
> ICP1, but there is no summary and analysis what impact did it make on
> the IANA and ICANN decision and practice.
Should be read:

In the report there is a good analysis and reference to RFC1591 and 
ICP1, but there is no summary and analysis what impact did 
_GAC_principles_ make on the IANA and ICANN decisions and practice.