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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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: