[AT-Review] Draft - updated version

[olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com]

RT,
 
I share Fabio's concern about the first recommendation of WG4.
 
I think the scope covered by this new committee is much too broad.
 
My suggestion (see enclosed documents with revision marks) is to focus their work on the three mechanisms and in particular on the question we raise about them.
 
Concerning the more global analysis of the appeal mechanisms framework, I propose to include it ias a topic of the new regular internal review we recommend in the "Overarching Recommendation" 
 
Best regards,
 
Olivier
________________________________

De : at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Fiona Alexander
Envoyé : vendredi 22 octobre 2010 17:26
À : 'briancute at afilias.info'; at-review at icann.org; ugasser at cyber.law.harvard.edu; 'Caroline Nolan'; rfaris at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Objet : 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/fe764996/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATRTdraftMaster8 0_NTIA_om redline.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 360448 bytes
Desc: ATRTdraftMaster8 0_NTIA_om redline.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20101023/fe764996/attachment-0001.doc