Ben Edelman wrote:
>We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
>you and David Post happen to submit comments that seem (to us!)
>substantially the same or overlapping in part, it seems a good use of the
>meeting's time for your agreement, along with any notable differences, to be
>reported. ("Michael Froomkin and David Post both submitted comments noting
>that... while Froomkin also went on to note ...")
I think it's a grave mistake to do this. A summary loses the flavor of the
comment and may infuse bias. Imagine if all those who attended the
Santiago meeting were told, "We don't have time to hear your comments.
Just tell us your concern and we will summarize it in a sentence or two
for the ICANN board and group it together with those of similar mind."
The remote contributions should be as valid as the physical participation,
since many of the interested parties have neither deep pockets nor
scheduling freedom to follow ICANN around the world. After hearing several
public onsite comments, the board should then refer to several online
comments, back and forth, through the open forum. Or some neutral party
should be assigned to read a few online comments interspersed with the ones
presented onsite.
But establishing someone in Santiago as a filter to distill the online
comments, to decide what is or is not important in a submission, is just
plain wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
