<div dir="ltr"><div>Recommendation 2, Enforcement, in the leading paragraph exclude removal of the individual Director and recall of the entire Board ,then propose two alternatives then the remaining part </div><div>again referred to the removal the individual Director and recall of the entire Board and</div><div>in aan ambigeous way proceed further without indicating that the escalation mentioned referred to option 1 or option 2</div><div>There may be a need to fix it easily but I leave it to those drafted this part. Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-02-14 20:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
Certainly we need a careful prof reading on paragraph numbering , steps numbering , after suppressing conference calls, grammatical mistakes without in any way touching or altering the substance this should be done after we review comments.<br>
Kavouss<br>
.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 14 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I've been through the final draft with an eye to issues that I thought<br>
> were important after the 3d draft. Here's what I noticed.<br>
><br>
> ANNEX 4<br>
><br>
> In Annex 4, in the discussion of removing directors, I recall some<br>
> discussion in one call about liaisons to the board. We concluded that<br>
> the recall powers did not extend to those liaisons. Those liaisons<br>
> are treated by ICANN as non-voting board members, though, so<br>
> presumably this section needs to mention that the recall powers don't<br>
> extend to the liasons. It's implicit in the text, but could be made<br>
> explicit. I suggest a parenthetical sentence or footnote at the end<br>
> of ¶40. Here's one suggestion: "Note that this power applies only to<br>
> voting members of the ICANN Board, and not to liaisons."<br>
><br>
> I should note that the diagrams and the headlines in this section are<br>
> numbered differently. Step 3 is the community forum, but the diagram<br>
> says Step 4; I think that's where the disconnect happens).<br>
><br>
> At ¶50 (which is either step 5 or step 6 ;-) ) there's a bullet,<br>
> "Naming a replacement". It'd be a good idea to call out here that the<br>
> actual mechanism by which the replacement is named hasn't actually<br>
> been established yet, and needs to be sorted out in WS2.<br>
><br>
> The same clarification about liaisons could be made clear in ¶60,<br>
> probably in the parenthetical bit "(except the CEO)".<br>
><br>
> In ¶77, "The right to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews<br>
> of IANA functions" should say "The right to reject ICANN Board<br>
> decisions relating to reviews of IANA naming functions", in keeping<br>
> with ¶75 and the section title. I think this is important in light of<br>
> the IAB comment that draft 3 was not clear enough that the IANA<br>
> functions IRP reviews were not adequately limited in scope.<br>
><br>
> ANNEX 5<br>
><br>
> ¶11, the mission.<br>
><br>
> Item 1 says, 'Coordinates the allocation and assignment of in the<br>
> root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS").'<br>
><br>
> There appears to be a word missing, after "of". I think "labels",<br>
> "names", or maybe "delegations" are ok. I very much prefer the first<br>
> of these, and note that "delegations" is probably too narrow since it<br>
> wouldn't cover things like glue records. Also, bullet 1 (starting<br>
> with "For which uniform or coordinated") has italics at the end (not<br>
> sure whether that's intentional) and finishes with a colon as opposed<br>
> to a semicolon. This is all reproduced at ¶39. I must have missed<br>
> this in previous iterations, and I apologise.<br>
><br>
> I note that Annex 7 has been explicitly altered to address the IAB's<br>
> comment about that annex. I believe the change is in keeping with the<br>
> IAB's comment (I haven't checked, but it'd be hard to see how not). I<br>
> appreciate the change.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>