Sarah and all,
Your suggestion to have staff advise the number of ‘for’ and ‘against’ GAC advise is well-taken. Besides the fact that the report appears outright biased, it is anything but an analysis of what was being said in the public comments as evidenced by the BC submission which was largely overlooked. There was also – as I noted on our call today – no mention of conflicts of interest, which weigh heavily in such an analysis.
I would encourage the BC to consider how we approach a response calling for a more neutral analysis with the accent on both ‘neutral’ and a real ‘analysis’ (as opposed to staff selected text) to frame an important document that is going to the NGBC for their review.
Kind regards,
RA
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:48
To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: ICANN Staff Report on Public Comments re: GAC Safeguard Advice
Phil,
Thanks for sharing. The staff report delves straight into the weeds without giving big picture data. It would be good to know how many commentators generally supported the GAC vs. raised concerns and who were the parties doing each?
Sarah
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:24 PM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Staff Report on Public Comments re: GAC Safeguard Advice
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00134.html
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey