[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summary Report on Public Comments Posted

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Brian.  If there is no analysis, why is there a section titled 
'analysis'?  And why are there some comments included under 'summary' and 
others under 'analysis'?

Chuck

From: Brian Peck [mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:57 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Margie Milam
Subject: Re: Summary Report on Public Comments Posted

Chuck,

Thank you very much for your email.  In this case, the public comment is on a 
work product of the Drafting Team and so, staff's analysis is limited to 
determining the nature of and categorizing the universe of comments in response 
to the DT's proposed solution in response to the GAC proposal to protect the 
RCRC/IOC names.  For example, we categorized the concerns raised by the 
commentators that opposed the proposal either on substantive or procedural 
grounds, as well as the nature of the rationale provided by commentators 
supporting the proposal.  There is no role for the staff (nor would it be 
appropriate) to provide further analysis (i.e, the merits or lack of for the 
proposal, or, how the DT should act in response to the comments).

This type of public comment differs from a public comment on a staff 
implementation issue, in which case, the staff would provide more of an 
analysis on the merits of the comments, and if necessary, rationale why it 
would accept or disagree with public comments in its final implementation 
decision.

Hope this helps in clarifying, please let us know if you have further 
questions.  Thanks.

Best Regards,


On 5/10/12 5:33 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for alerting us to this Brian.

Unlike previous public comment summary reports, this doesn't appear to me to 
contain any staff analysis.  Was that intentional?  If so, why?

I note that Section IV of the report is titled 'Analysis of Comments' but it is 
really just a continuation of Section III, 'Summary of Comments' with quite a 
bit of duplication from Section III.



Any clarification regarding staff's intent and/or rationale on this approach 
would be appreciated.



Chuck



From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:59 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summary Report on Public Comments Posted

Wanted to advise the Drafting Team that the Summary Report on the Public 
Comments for the Proposal to Protect International Red Cross and International 
Olympic Committee Names at the Top Level in New gTLDs has now been posted on 
the ICANN website:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-ioc-rcrc-proposal-08may12-en.pdf

Best Regards,

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN