ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


<<< 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">&nbsp;</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."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
<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 &lt;<a 
href="mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br>
Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 12:59 pm<br>
To: Alan Greenberg &lt;<a 
href="http://alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;, 
PEDNR<br>
&lt;<a href="mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<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&nbsp;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?&nbsp;</li><li>Is there a requirement that everyone who submits a comment 
receive a reason why their comments were not addressed ?&nbsp;</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.&nbsp;</div> <div><br> </div> <div>&nbsp;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" &lt;<a target="_blank" 
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; 
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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy