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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I will add one more candid comment.

Over the years, I have been frustrated by the lack of response (or 
even recognition of) comments summitted. But at the same time, when 
the edict was passed down from on high that WG must REALLY look at 
the comments and duly consider them, my original reaction was that it 
was a nice idea, but a pipe-dream. It would be *FAR* more work than 
was either practical or even possible.
Well, we now have done it. And the PDP-WT that I am very active in 
has also done it admirably. No small thanks for this goes to Marika 
and her colleagues for organizing the work such that it is possible 
to attack in a systematic and thorough way.
And I think that our work products and ultimately ICANN policy 
benefits from it in an immense way.
Alan

At 21/09/2011 04:32 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> 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 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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.
> > 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>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.
> > 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" 
> > <<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.