ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:46:32 -0400

Good catch on the typos. I could probably beg and have them pull back that attachment and replace it with a corrected one, but I think I will let them stand to demonstrate (to those who might think otherwise) that I am human.

Alan (with a grin)

At 21/09/2011 02:34 PM, Diaz, Paul wrote:
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  <Http://www.networksolutions.com>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 <<mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 21, 2011 12:59 pm
To: Alan Greenberg <<http://alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR
<<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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. Did the IPC have any members participate in the PEDNR working group? If yes, what was their level of participation in the WG? 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" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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-15aug11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/pednr-board-recommendations-15aug11-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.


Attachment: 2f4bd950.jpg
Description:



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy