[AT-Review] Edits

[Fabio Colasanti]

Dear all,

Some small edits.

Page 3, first paragraph, last sentence.

Instead of "the ATRT will refine its proposed recommendations based, in part, on public comment received" I would write "the ATRT will refine its proposed recommendations also on the basis of public comment received".

Page 13, middle of the page, paragraph starting with "Within its Scope 
"

BCG should be replaced with BGC throughout the paragraph.


I am not sure that it will be possible to do all the adjustments called for explicitly in the text (e.g. in the points marked "Insert" or similar).   No harm is done by making the additions later.  But we should absolutely modify/edit the bullet point in the middle of page 24; it contains a message to the RT from the drafter.


Ideas for the work between now and Cartagena

We will have to work on the "findings", i.e. the rationale for our recommendations.   This will require some readjustment in the part from WG2.   The title of its last section is "Findings and recommendations" and the text is indeed a mixture of the two.   By analogy with the structure of the rest of the document we should split the findings (justification) from the recommendations themselves.

Here there is a problem of substance that has slipped in.   At the top of page 26 we call for the establishment of a "more formal, documented process" which may or may not include a database.   But the present wording only refers this process to the advice that the Board requests from GAC.  My understanding is that this "documented process" was to cover also the advice given by GAC.

At present we have no justification at all for the recommendations of WG 3.

In general, we will have to make sure that each recommendation has at least a paragraph of justification in the "findings" sections.

Finally, I offer here a consideration that we have not discussed in any of our meetings (my apologies, but we are expected to keep thinking until the recommendations are delivered).    One of the fundamental requisites of the directors is their independence (at least for those appointed by the NomCom).   Guaranteeing the independence of ICANN directors (as the independence of regulators and many other people with similar responsibilities) is notoriously difficult and depends on many factors.  However, one institutional arrangement that is usually introduced is the security of tenure.  The person appointed to a position of responsibility that requires independence should be guaranteed to serve his/her expected term.  A removal is only allowed under very restrictive conditions spelled out by the laws and that exclude any discretionality by external powers.   In some cases (e.g. in France), the law even spells out that the person cannot have a second mandate, because the hope f!
 or an extension of the mandate might undermine his/her independence.  The bottom line of these provisions is that there should be no one able to "fire" a director or to offer him/her the advantage of an extension of his/her mandate.

During one of the last telephone conversation we have heard that the NomCom has effectively terminated the mandate of at least two more directors that it was absolutely necessary.   The NomCom has therefore, theoretically, the power to influence the directors.   Should we be discussing this?   Is there a case for appointing directors for a fixed, non-renewable mandate?

Fabio