<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- To: "Jeff Eckhaus" <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:19:05 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div><span>I see Alan has already responded in a personal
capacity, which is fine.<span
id="GD__CURSOR"> </span></span></div><div><br></div><div>And agree with
Jeff that all too often "ICANN / WG isn't listening to me" is policy-speak for
"My position didn't prevail."
<br></div><div><br>Thanks--</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR<br>
From: Jeff Eckhaus <<a
href="mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 12:59 pm<br>
To: Alan Greenberg <<a
href="http://alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a>>,
PEDNR<br>
<<a href="mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<div>Alan,</div> <div><br> </div> <div>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 response.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Now on to
the a couple of questions I have about process here and how a working
group must operate.</div> <ol> <li>Did the IPC have any members participate in
the PEDNR working group? If yes, what was their level of participation in the
WG? </li><li>Is there a requirement that everyone who submits a comment
receive a reason why their comments were not addressed ? </li></ol>
<div>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. </div> <div><br> </div> <div> 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</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Jeff</div> <div><br> </div> <div><br>
</div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div>
<div>On 9/21/11 10:15 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:</div> <div><br> </div> <blockquote
id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid;
PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"> <div>The IPC submitted a very substantive
comment regarding the PEDNR </div> <div>report - see </div> <div><a
target="_blank"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/pednr-board-recommendations-15aug11-en.htm";>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/pednr-board-recommendations-15aug11-en.htm</a>.</div>
<div><br> </div> <div>I felt that some of their comments needed to be
addressed, as they </div> <div>could be inferred as saying that the WG was less
than meticulous in </div> <div>reviewing the comments we received to the draft
report.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>I have taken the liberty of replying. This
was done purely on my only </div> <div>behalf and I made that clear.
Nevertheless, I think (hope?) that the </div> <div>comments do reflect the
views of the WG when it reviewed the original </div> <div>IPC comments. A copy
of my posting is attached.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>As Marika has not yet
summarized the comments, I am hoping that my </div> <div>new post will be
reflected in that summary. This is in line with the </div> <div>future plans to
have a "reply" cycle in future comment periods.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>If
anyone feels that I have mis-represented the WG, please let me and </div>
<div>Marika know ASAP and I will do what I can to fix it.</div> <div><br>
</div> <div>Alan</div> </blockquote> <br> <hr> <font color="Gray" face="Arial"
size="1">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.<br> </font>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|