Dennis, one specific action that should be possible to do as a courtesy to the people on the VIP list: Circulate the Word version of the final report. Ideally, this would be a redline from the Dec 6 version (the product of diffing the previous version with the current version, not a changelog). But a Word version would allow others to do the diff step. Since none outside of the VIP list have seen the Dec 6 version, it is only the VIP list that would be able to use such a version. Harald On 01/06/2012 11:51 AM, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrick,
I understand your frustration.
May I suggest that you send your comments on the version of the document that you studied to the public comment forum, with an introductory note saying that your comments are based on an earlier version of the draft and that regrettably you do not have time to review the final draft document.
That would be very helpful.
Many thanks Dennis
On 06/01/2012 10:33, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I do though not know what I should do with my comments.
They are not part of the public comment period, so no one know about them part from people on the VIP list.
I have no idea what the differences are between the two versions of the documents.
I have no idea in the form of feedback on what you felt about my comments. Maybe you for example ignored some because you felt I was completely wrong, some because you did not understand them. I do not know.
Speaking into /dev/null is not very fun.
Specifically for a very long document like this.
And no, I do not have time to go through and reverse engineer your thinking of my comments based on the (unknown) differences between the two documents. I simply do not have time.
So, what should I do? Send in the version of the document published on Dec 3 and my comments into the public comment period, and explain what happened, and that I do not have time to look at the comments compared with the version now being published?
Or do you have some more constructive proposal?
Patrik
On 6 jan 2012, at 11:05, Dennis Jennings wrote:
Patrik,
Thank you for your comments about the VIP list.
The VIP list was established as a mechanism for people to be kept informed about the VIP project and to discuss the project. Neither the list nor the discussions on the list were ever intended to be part of the process of the development of either the Case Study Reports (that was for the Case Study Teams, supported by the ICANN VIP Team) or part of the process of the the development of the Integrated Issues Report (that was for the ICANN VIP team, supported by the Coordination Team drawn from the membership of the Case Study Teams).
Naturally, the ICANN VIP team kept an eye on the VIP list discussion, and attempted to incorporate as many of the comments that were made on the list as was possible in the very short period of time available. I think that those discussions were helpful and that many of the issues raised were considered and incorporated in the Report - but it was never intended that the participants on the VIP list would have any formal role in determining the release of the final draft report for public comment.
The time and place for comments on the Case Study Reports was during the relevant public comment period - and we thank everyone who commented. The time for comments on the Integrated Issues Report is now during this current public comment period - and we look forward to lots of detailed comment.
I regret that there seems to have been some misunderstanding about the role of the VIP list. This misunderstanding may have been added to when an earlier draft of the Integrated Issues report was circulated to the VIP list for comment. I apologise if that is the case. However, I sincerely hope that all comments on important issues that people feel were aired on the VIP list, but that have not, in their view, been appropriately incorporated into the Integrated Issues Report, will now be submitted as part of the public comment period. If people find it useful to continue discussions on the VIP list, then the VIP Team will continue to monitor the discussions on the list, and will take the comments into account when updating the final report.
I know that many people, including yourself, feel strongly about many of the IDN Variant issues, and I very much appreciate your continuing support for the VIP Project.
Many thanks Dennis
On 05/01/2012 07:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 5 jan 2012, at 00:16, Naela Sarras wrote:
We have incorporated as many of your comments as possible... That is not good enough.
I have been told the *discussion* about the vip project was to be held here, and I do not see any such discussion.
Having people send comments into /dev/null where absolutely no discussion is held is not a working process.
And having a document be for open comments _before_ it is discussed on the list where it was supposed to be discussed is a seriously broken process.
The comment period is to start _after_ we on this list agree to the document be ready for such actions.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Dennis Jennings, Managing Director, Knous Limited
www.knous.ie <http://www.knous.ie/>
_Dennis.Jennings@knous.ie_ <mailto:Dennis.Jennings@ICANN.org>
Registered in Ireland No. 477218
Mobile: +353 87 220 8225
VAT No.IE 9726842D
Home Office: +353 1 269 5475** Please note new number
Directors:
Skype: DennisJennings
D.M. Jennings (Managing), D. Fitzmaurice
------------------------------------------------------------------------