[AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS

Chris Disspain ceo at auda.org.au
Sun Oct 24 03:12:23 UTC 2010


Hi Fabio,

See below.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: 1300 732 929 | F: 03 8341 4112
E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf
> Of Fabio Colasanti
> Sent: Sunday, 24 October 2010 14:05
> To: Chris Disspain; briancute at afilias.info; at-review at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
>
> Dear all,
>
> I will not be able to make Monday's conference call.  My concern was not
on the
> "strength" of the language for the recommendation.  It was on wheather
the ATRT was
> expected to say something on the mechanisms to appeal the decisions of
the Board or
> not (para 9.1a of the AoC).
>
> First.  My problem is not primarily with the language of the first
recommendation.  I had
> indicated that I could have accepted (and I still could) the simple
insertion of the word
> "three" to indicate that this additional Accountability and Transparency
work was to
> cover only these three appeal mechanisms and not the accountability and
transparency
> of all Icann's mechanisms.
[Chris Disspain] I'm happy with that change.
>
> Second.  My major problem was with not explaining sufficiently in the
"Findings" why we
> were suggesting that another group does what, at first sight, we were
supposed to do.
> The present text (version 10), although still a bit criptic, achieves
this.   It says that we
> have disagreements and that we have identified issues, relating to the
AoC review,
> where we find that another independent group should continue the work.
[Chris Disspain] I have no problem with the current text (version 10) of
Findings at all. My concern was/is only with the recommendation.
>
> Third.   (But this is does not have an impact on the text, once we have
"re-
> strengthened" the language of the recommendation and maintained or
improved the
> explanatory language in the "Findings" section) I disagree with Chris on
our remit.  I
> believe that we were supposed to look also at the IRP.  Why have we set
up a WG4 at
> all?
[Chris Disspain] Now that is a topic for discussion over a glass of
magnificent red wine in Cartagena;-)
>
> Fabio
>
>
> > ==========================
> > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:09:25 +1100 (EST)
> > From: "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au>
> > To: <briancute at afilias.info>, <at-review at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10  - CONCERNS
> > ==========================
> >
> > All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm very concerned that the current amendments to the language
> > of the
> > first paragraph of WG4 recommendations has been so watered down
> > that the
> > recommendation is now ineffectual.
> >
> >
> >
> > The current draft language is:
> >
> >
> >
> > "The ICANN Board should (as soon as possible, but no later than
> > INSERT
> > DATE) seek input from a committee of independent experts on the
> > restructuring of the three review mechanisms - the Independent
> > Review
> > Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration Process and the Office of the
> > Ombudsman.
> > This should, in particular, address the following topics:
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the paragraph is basically meaningless. It simply
> > asks the
> > Board to seek input, and makes no reference to previous
recommendations
> > to
> > the Board which have not been followed. Further, the removal
> > of the
> > references to the sort of review it should be (broad, comprehensive
> > etc)
> > means that at no point in the recommendation as a whole is anything
> > specific said about the IRP. The sub-points to the recommendation
> > provide
> > specific input re Ombudsman and reconsideration but nothing on
> > IRP.
> >
> >
> >
> > The previous language was:
> >
> >
> >
> > "The ICANN Board should implement (as soon as possible, but no
> > later than
> > INSERT DATE) Recommendation 2.7 of the 2009 Improving Institutional
> > Confidence Implementation Plan which calls on ICANN to seek input
> > from a
> > committee of independent experts on the restructuring of the
> > review
> > mechanisms - the Independent Review Panel (IRP), the Reconsideration
> > Process and the Office of the Ombudsman.  This should be a broad,
> > comprehensive assessment of the accountability and transparency
> > of the
> > existing mechanisms, their inter-relation, if any (i.e., do the
> > three
> > processes provided for a graduated appeals process) with a view
> > towards
> > reducing costs, issuing timelier decisions, and covering a wider
> > spectrum
> > of issues in the IRP.  The utility of the Community Re-Vote and
> > Board
> > removal mechanisms should be assessed and appropriate action
> > taken.  Were
> > these issues adequately discussed to include them?"
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.    I have no issue with the removal of the community re-vote
> > and Boars
> > removal mechanisms sentence.
> >
> > 2.    I believe that it is the ATRT's role to review what the
> > Board is
> > doing re accountability and transparency and that on this basis
> > it is
> > completely within our mandate to recommend that the Board carry
> > out
> > something that has already been recommended. We have done this
> > several
> > times in  the report. We have recommended they follow the previous
> > recommendation and pay directors. We have recommended that they
> > follow the
> > recommendations of the Board and Nom Com reviews. I do not understand
> > why
> > there is a problem recommending they follow the recommendations
> > of the
> > PSC.
> >
> > 3.    The additional part of the paragraph is critical, in my
> > view, if
> > this recommendation is going to have any credibility. We have
> > discussed at
> > length the issues that we have received feedback on in our public
> > comment
> > process and in interviews. This is neatly encapsulated in the
> > second
> > sentence of the previous language. Also the second sentence provides
> > clear
> > direction to the Board on how comprehensive the assessment should
> > be etc.
> > This is also critical.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fabio's comment:
> >
> >
> >
> > "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 agree with this. It is NOT the ATRT's job to review
> > the IRP or
> > the Ombudsman function. It is the ATRT's job to review the performance
> > under the AoC. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for us to
> > recommend
> > that the Board follow the recommendations of a previous review
> > (by the
> > PSC) even if that recommendation is itself that there should
> > be a review.
> >
> >
> >
> > I consider that the previous language is far more of a substantial
> > recommendation that the current language.
> >
> >
> >
> > I consider that the current language will lead to us being seriously
> > criticised.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have in my diary that we have a conference call set for 11.00
> > UTC on
> > Monday. If that's correct perhaps we can use that to debate this
> > issue if
> > need be.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Brian Cute
> > Sent: Sunday, 24 October 2010 04:26
> > To: at-review at icann.org
> > Subject: [AT-Review] Version 10
> >
> >
> >
> > RT,
> >
> >
> >
> > Attached is the next version.  The following version will be
> > our final
> > version that is sent to the translation team.  If we do not reach
> > agreement on WG4, I will sent the balance of the document to
> > the
> > translation team to begin that process while we finalize WG4.
> >
> >
> >
> > Edits in this version include:  Warren's edits from his email
> > yesterday
> > and Olivier's edits from today.  My view of WG4:  we have represented
> > that
> > there is a divergence of opinion on the ATRT regarding the issue
> > of a
> > binding appeals mechanism.  Olivier's proposed edits are designed
> > to
> > address the concern that we are asking ICANN to undertake a review
> > when
> > the ATRT should be doing a review and offering firm recommendations.
> >  I
> > have added some language in the Findings section of WG4 that
> > explains the
> > ATRT view of the incomplete IIC work.  Olivier's language narrows
> > the WG4
> > recommendations to the specific issues that have been identified
> > by the
> > ATRT with respect to the 3 appeals mechanisms.  I believe this
> > is a
> > balance approach to address the divergent views of the Review
> > Team and a
> > way to make recommendations that call for concrete action as
> > opposed to an
> > open review.
> >
> >
> >
> > At this point, the document needs to go forward if we are to
> > respect our
> > intention to have the comment period close prior to Cartagena.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please submit your final view on the proposed language.  If there
> > is
> > serious dissent, dissenting opinions will have to be drafted.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> > signature database 5558 (20101023) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT-Review mailing list
> > AT-Review at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database
> 5558 (20101023) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 5558 (20101023) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



More information about the AT-Review mailing list