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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

hanks for this Alan,

Not only  do I agree with your original response to IPC in your personal
capacity as reflecting  my own views,   I also agree with and want to thank
you for the detailed responses you gave to Jeff's  points  raised /
questions  asked...

Personally I too think that greater attention to the responses WG's  (or
decision makers/groups within ICANN) give    to comments received
(whether from within a Call for Comments  cycle or not) is s  omething we
all ( ICANN wide) need to  FAR pay more attention to, but that the PEDNR-WG
did an admirable job of...


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 22 September 2011 04:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  At 21/09/2011 01:59 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> There were three IPC people on the WG. J. Scott Evans, Alaine Doolan and
> Ted Suzuki. Attendance details on page 17 of report -
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf. J. Scott
> was only present at two teleconferences and for the other two, my
> recollection was that the level of participation was not high, but was
> probably on a par with other WG members who did not have a long history in
> ICANN.
>
>
>    1. Is there a requirement that everyone who submits a comment receive a
>    reason why their comments were not addressed ?
>
> Certainly there is no requirement to address the replies directly back to
> the person/group that submitted the comments. There is an expectation that
> the WG will review the comments and give them due consideration. In my view
> (having submitted comments that have been blatantly ignored in the past),
> there is an expectation that if a comment is rejected, that some rationale
> be given. I think that we did all of the first parts. In reviewing the
> documents for my reply, I found that we did address our rationale in some of
> the cases (which perhaps was not considered sufficient), and in other cases,
> hindsight says we could have been clearer.
>
> I do think that we did a better job than many groups in the past, so I
> don't think that we were negligent.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I agree that there is no onus on the WG to accept all comments. I think
> that it should try to explain why. And of course, it is fair game for them
> to repeat the comments to the next group up the food chain if they feel
> strongly enough about it.
>
> As I said, I think we did a MUCH better job than some past examples. Your's
> were not the only comments on the various Applicant Guidebook versions that
> went unheeded and even uncommented. Some of the last-minute crisis
> interventions that have made our life exciting this year and last could have
> been avoided if that had not been the case (Morality, JAS and many of the
> GAC issues to name a few).
>
>
>
>  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
>
>
> Indeed, and you will note that I *did* direct them to the transcripts and
> MP3s. However, in this case, I really want the Board to approve these
> recommendations without further delay, so I went a step farther than was
> technically necessary (or perhaps expected).
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> 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-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.
>
>