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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree, Alan thanks for the response to my questions and comments.

Appreciated

Jeff



From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:32:36 -0700
To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] IPC comment for PEDNR

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<mailto: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<mailto: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.


________________________________
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.