[AT-Review] Comments on latest drafts (Saturday 9.40 a.m. Brussels time)

[Fabio Colasanti]

Dear all,

In Fiona's message there are references to contributions by Manal and Olivier, but I have not seen them at all.   Were they addressed to the list?

Many thanks for all the editing work that has been done.   I agree with the present text (version 8 NTIA), I also agree with Warren's suggested changes on three recommendations.

However, I believe we still have a number of outstanding issues.   It is not a question of life and death and I will not insist again after this last time, but I still believe my points have not been addressed.   I would like to see some comments on these issues by the members of the RT.

The first recommendation of section 4 does not look like a recommendation at all.  It calls on somebody else to do the job that, I am sure, the Community expected us to do.   We have 101 reasons for being unable to make a substantial recommendation at this moment, but it is necessary to give at least a word of explanation.   Otherwise we could be seriously criticised.    As a minimum, in the sixth line, instead of "of the existing mechanisms" we should be saying "of the existing three mechanisms" (plus the "Community re-vote", if we want to add it).  Otherwise the current text looks very much like our own mandate.

I do not insist on the point on the Ombudsman where I believe we have an adequate and substantial recommendation.  But I believe that the Board Removal Mechanism is part of the mechanisms designed to determine the composition of the Board (nominations and dismissals).   I am against saying anything on this as I do not remember ever discussing it in one of our meetings.  Maybe we should be saying that we did not have the time to look into this matter and therefore we suggest that somebody else does it (but we should be saying this in section 1).   There is no shame in acknowledging that we did not have the time to look into the thousand matters that should have been looked at. 

I wonder if the Board Removal Mechanism is not an issue that we should be having a look at between now and Cartagena together with the other issue I mentioned in one of my previous mails (power of the NomCom to effectively "fire" directors; case for defending the independence of the directors by appointing them for a fixed, non-renewable mandate).

Fabio