Re: [wg-c] Comments

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Mark,

Jon has been cc'd on at least one of the "Call to Comment" mailings I've
sent since the comment period began, and is aware that all that anyone
really needed to offer was an "I Support". A few of the comments both in
the DNSO WG-C comments-gtlds archive and not in that archive raised some
issues, but most of these are artifacts of the constraints of format and
set questions and initial exposure to the ICANN/DNSO/gTLD/not-NSI issues.

In spite of their length, some of the supporting comments to other PPs
could be improved by reduction to a simple "I support Position Paper <X>",
but everyone has a right to their prolix moment.

I sent Jon a "about 170 or so" mail the morning (EST) of the 10th, exact
numbers doesn't interest me (not like the last vote, neh?), just the sense
of what you termed the "demotic chord". I was knocking out a quickie over
view of the turnout yesterday (I'm servicing 3 interrupt routines this
week under the age of 3.5, one on day 13 since his invocation), which can
just as well go here:

    PPE received a substantial turnout from the TribalLaw list (300
    members), the list where tribal DNS and IP work has taken place
    since 1996. PPE also receved a substantial turnout from the NetRez
    list (100 members), the oldest Indian net mailing list, and the
    indigenous knowledge lists. PPE obtained modest turnout in venues
    not majority Indian or Indigenous such as anthro-l and Working Group
    C itself.

I counted 190, of which I "know" the person submitting the comment in about
one third of the cases, and know someone who knows the submitter in about
another third of the cases. Some are just a surprise.


I'm expecting a "ballot-stuffing" or "unqualified comments" allegation from
Milton Meuller but I don't plan to give it much thought.

Cheers,
Eric