Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:59:15 -0700
Reading your response, I can agree with the spirit and most of the items in
there. I may have some comments on some of the wording, but then again I
usually do. I am not sure if you can send this from the whole WG, but
personally I am OK with you sending it as is and that it is a fairly accurate
Now on to the a couple of questions I have about process here and how a working
group must operate.
1. Did the IPC have any members participate in the PEDNR working group? If
yes, what was their level of participation in the WG?
2. Is there a requirement that everyone who submits a comment receive a
reason why their comments were not addressed ?
Specifically for number two I have a personal gripe that people in the ICANN
process continue to scream , that people did not listen to their comments when
items were not changed based upon their comments. Listening to comments and
making substantive changes based upon comments are two distinct items and
people need to recognize that. I believe it is OK to listen to comments and say
thank you for your comments but we have chosen not to take action upon your
comments.I know that ICANN gas done that numerous times with regard to my
comments on the Applicant Guidebook.
In addition I do not think there is a need to reply on a line item basis for
why each comment was not addressed. If they are interested in our deliberations
and reasoning I am sure you could direct them to the mp3 recordings of each
call and allow them to listen to our 2+ years of meetings and our reasoning for
the final report
On 9/21/11 10:15 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding the PEDNR
report - see
I felt that some of their comments needed to be addressed, as they
could be inferred as saying that the WG was less than meticulous in
reviewing the comments we received to the draft report.
I have taken the liberty of replying. This was done purely on my only
behalf and I made that clear. Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the
comments do reflect the views of the WG when it reviewed the original
IPC comments. A copy of my posting is attached.
As Marika has not yet summarized the comments, I am hoping that my
new post will be reflected in that summary. This is in line with the
future plans to have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.
If anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and
Marika know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc.
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and
then delete it from your system. Thank you.