Re: [gnso-dow123] Public comments on preliminary task force report
Fellow task force members; I'm not surprised that members of the intellectual property community are speaking in support of the intellectual property constituency position. But I am somewhat puzzled by Steve's implication that one of the purposes of the public comment forum is to rebut the comments filed by other stakeholders and those that are left unopposed somehow gain special consideration in the process. My preference for tomorrow's call would be to spend out time dealing with any elements of these submissions that bring new facts, ideas or issues into play that we have not previously considered. Steve Metalitz wrote: At least two comments received in response to our preliminary task force reports -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whoisprivacy-cmts/msg00003.html and http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whoisprivacy-cmts/msg00006.html -- show support for some of the tweaks to the recommendation (re procedure for handling conflicts with local law) which the task force chair ruled in our September 6 call did not have sufficient support for inclusion. I did not see anything in the public comments that took an opposing position. Accordingly, on our call tomorrow, should we reconsider the rejection of proposals 3, 5, and 6? See http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00554.html, http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00556.html, and http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00557.html.
|