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

[Manal Ismail]

Dear Fabio ..

My comment referenced by Fiona was regarding the quorum of the GAC,
please check the email attached ..

Kind regards

--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Fabio Colasanti
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 9:44 AM
To: at-review at icann.org; ugasser at cyber.law.harvard.edu;
rfaris at cyber.law.harvard.edu; cnolan at cyber.law.harvard.edu
Cc: alice.jansen at icann.org
Subject: [AT-Review] Comments on latest drafts (Saturday 9.40 a.m.
Brusselstime)

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


_______________________________________________
AT-Review mailing list
AT-Review at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Draft - next version
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:15:08 +0200
Size: 4665
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20101024/19d7835d/attachment.mht