[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summary Report on Public Comments Posted
- To: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summary Report on Public Comments Posted
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 21:27:39 +0000
Thanks Brian. If there is no analysis, why is there a section titled
'analysis'? And why are there some comments included under 'summary' and
others under 'analysis'?
From: Brian Peck [mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:57 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Margie Milam
Subject: Re: Summary Report on Public Comments Posted
Thank you very much for your email. In this case, the public comment is on a
work product of the Drafting Team and so, staff's analysis is limited to
determining the nature of and categorizing the universe of comments in response
to the DT's proposed solution in response to the GAC proposal to protect the
RCRC/IOC names. For example, we categorized the concerns raised by the
commentators that opposed the proposal either on substantive or procedural
grounds, as well as the nature of the rationale provided by commentators
supporting the proposal. There is no role for the staff (nor would it be
appropriate) to provide further analysis (i.e, the merits or lack of for the
proposal, or, how the DT should act in response to the comments).
This type of public comment differs from a public comment on a staff
implementation issue, in which case, the staff would provide more of an
analysis on the merits of the comments, and if necessary, rationale why it
would accept or disagree with public comments in its final implementation
Hope this helps in clarifying, please let us know if you have further
On 5/10/12 5:33 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for alerting us to this Brian.
Unlike previous public comment summary reports, this doesn't appear to me to
contain any staff analysis. Was that intentional? If so, why?
I note that Section IV of the report is titled 'Analysis of Comments' but it is
really just a continuation of Section III, 'Summary of Comments' with quite a
bit of duplication from Section III.
Any clarification regarding staff's intent and/or rationale on this approach
would be appreciated.
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:59 PM
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary Report on Public Comments Posted
Wanted to advise the Drafting Team that the Summary Report on the Public
Comments for the Proposal to Protect International Red Cross and International
Olympic Committee Names at the Top Level in New gTLDs has now been posted on
the ICANN website: