[AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
Manal Ismail
manal at tra.gov.eg
Sun Oct 24 20:18:54 UTC 2010
Thanks Fabio ..
Hope you'll be able to join the call ..
--Manal
________________________________
From: Fabio Colasanti [mailto:fabio at colasanti.it]
Sent: Sun 24/10/2010 07:06 PM
To: Manal Ismail; briancute at afilias.info; Chris Disspain; at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
Dear Manal, dear all,
yes, I can live with the text you propose. Thanks.
As for tomorrow's call it is still fifty-fifty on whether I shall be able to make it.
All the best,
Fabio
> ==========================
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:09:37 +0200
> From: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> To: <briancute at afilias.info>, "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au>,
> <at-review at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
> ==========================
>
> Thanks Brian ..
>
>
>
> A few remarks on version 10:
>
>
>
> - 2 minor typos on page 41:
>
> " Midterm Review of the review of the Joint Project Agreement
> (JPA) "
>
> " Recommendation 2.8: Establish and additional mechanism for
> the
> community "
>
>
>
> - I was going to propose, if not a hassle, that references
> of
> WG4 be added as footnotes .. first of all for consistency and
> second
> cause I find it confusing having interlaced references 1,2,.....
> then
> 61, 62, ... .. but just noticed that not all references are inserted
> in
> the body of the document .. so we can either remove references
> 1-5 from
> page 38 or if no agreement leave everything as is for the sake
> of time
> ..
>
>
>
> - With regards to the first para under WG4 recommendations,
> Fabio mentioned that he will not be able to join the call so
> I'm afraid
> we might not be able to close this discussion on the call ..
> I believe
> Chris wanted to revert to the old text and Fabio was fine with
> the text
> only wanted to add the word 'three' to the 'review mechanisms'
> to
> further focus the review and make sure it does not sound as if
> it was
> the RT's mandate .. I do not think Fabio was suggesting deleting
> all
> what has been deleted unless I misunderstood the debate .. I
> thought we
> were converging to the following:
>
> "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
> three
> 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 three 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. "
>
>
>
> Chris, Fabio does the above text capture the concerns of both
> of you ?
>
> Olivier, do you mind reverting back to the old text?
>
> Finally, Warren, I believe you were in favour of the old text
> too,
> right?
>
>
>
> I know there is still some disagreement on whether in principle
> the RT
> should further investigate the review mechanisms but would this
> affect
> the current state of the text ? I believe even Fabio mentioned
> that this
> would not impact the text ..
>
> Does this capture the debate or have I overlooked other points
> of
> disagreement?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
>
>
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Brian Cute
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 2:48 PM
> To: 'Chris Disspain'; at-review at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
>
>
>
> RT,
>
>
>
> Tomorrow I will send the balance of the document to the translation
> team
> with the WG4 section (and the WG4 references in the earlier portions
> of
> the document) removed. We have a divergence of views on WG4
> that must
> be resolved. I was hoping to cancel the call on Monday but it
> appears
> we need to have that call for the unique purpose of resolving
> the WG4
> portion of the report. We will resolve the WG4 portion and send
> it to
> the translation team so the document can be issued to the public
> as a
> whole.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au]
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:09 PM
> To: briancute at afilias.info; at-review at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> 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
>
> T: 1300 732 929 <tel:1300%20732%20929> | F: 03 8341 4112
> <tel:03%208341%204112>
>
> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W:www.auda.org.au <http://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 <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 <http://www.eset.com/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
More information about the AT-Review
mailing list