RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with all that's been posted, and generally support all of the
responses Alan offered in his personal capacity.

 

NOTE: there are two typos.  In Rec #1's "Reply" section, it should be
'propose' not 'proposed.'  In Rec #18, I think you meant to use "IPC"
(vice "IPS") in the response.  Hey, I had to complain about something...
;-)

 

 Paul A. Diaz 
 Policy & Ethics Manager

 

P 703-668-4961  www.networksolutions.com
<Http://www.networksolutions.com> 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:19 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Alan Greenberg; PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR

 

I see Alan has already responded in a personal capacity, which is fine. 

 

And agree with Jeff that all too often "ICANN / WG isn't listening to
me" is policy-speak for "My position didn't prevail."     


Thanks--

 

J.

 

        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
        From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 12:59 pm
        To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR
        <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

        Alan,

         

        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.

         

        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

         

        Jeff

         

         

         

         

         

         

        On 9/21/11 10:15 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

         

                The IPC submitted a very substantive comment regarding
the PEDNR 

                report - see 

                
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/pednr-board-recommendations-15aug
11-en.htm.

                 

                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.

                 

                Alan

         

        
________________________________


        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.