[AT-Review] Draft - updated version

[Chris Disspain]

I haven't read the full document yet but confirm that I am happy with the
re-drafts of WG4 recommendations.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

 <tel:1300%20732%20929> T: 1300 732 929 |  <tel:03%208341%204112> F: 03
8341 4112

E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au

 

auDA - The Australian Domain Name Administrator

 

 

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the
use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient,
you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have
received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this
message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this
email.

 

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Fiona Alexander
Sent: Saturday, 23 October 2010 02:26
To: 'briancute at afilias.info'; at-review at icann.org;
ugasser at cyber.law.harvard.edu; 'Caroline Nolan';
rfaris at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Draft - updated version

 

Enclosed is both a redline version as well as clean version of the
document.  They include the following

 

-          Shifting the overarching recommendation to the end of the list
in the executive summary.

-          Inserting the date options highlighted in yellow to the
recommendations in the individual working group reports.  If folks are ok
with this overall concept and approach, then we would suggest removing the
yellow highlights (of course retaining the text) prior to publication.

-          The inclusion in the WG 2 report about the quorum needed for
GAC decisions to respond to Manal's earlier request.

-          Revised WG 4 report with recommendations which we believe
address the points made by Chris earlier.  Folks should review this
section carefully to make sure it covers all their points.  Highlighted in
green in both versions (clean and redline) in the executive summary and
the WG 4 report is the outstanding question from Fabio - should the first
recommendation include the points on the community re-vote and the board
removal option, at this time.  Larry's recollection of the meeting in
Cambridge is that the ATRT had asked Berkman to look into the community
re-vote option.

 

The report does still contain a yellow highlighted paragraph on page 36.
We are ok with re-moving the highlight, but were unsure why the highlight
was there.

 

Once Fabio's question is addressed we are ok with publication of the
report as it appears in the clean version of the document, but would of
course be happy to discuss further if there are still issues/concerns.

 

Fiona

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Cute
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:54 AM
To: at-review at icann.org; ugasser at cyber.law.harvard.edu; 'Caroline Nolan';
rfaris at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: [AT-Review] Draft - updated version

 

RT,

 

Attached is an updated version that incorporates Fabio and Olivier's edits
and which also includes a proposed Executive Summary and Recommendations
at the beginning of the document.  WG4 is being sorted out separately per
the earlier emails and will be incorporated into this document when it is
stable (along with a section in the Executive Summary and Recommendations
at the beginning of the document.).  The citations have been checked but
please feel free to point out any additional edits on that front as well.

 

Regards,

Brian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20101023/41366f56/attachment.html