[CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9

[Steve DelBianco]

Greg — The two questions you raise are closely related, I think.

Para 21 is the one with footnote 2.  It reads:

Community stakeholder groups should appoint their own representatives to Review Teams. Regarding composition and size of review teams, based on composition of prior Review Teams, 21 ReviewTeam members from Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would be more than needed. [2]

While I did not have footnote 2 in my submission for para 21, it seems the document editors intended to refer to the table showing participation in previous AoC Reviews (para 128-164).

It should be easy to repair the missing link during proofreading.



From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:01 AM
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9

I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews):

1.  Footnote 2 is empty.  What is supposed to be there? (Para 21)
2.  There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams.  There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table.  What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164)

Thanks!

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151207/5036fed8/attachment.html>