[AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Oct 25 05:56:10 UTC 2010


Great .. Thanks Warren ..

 

--Manal

 

From: wadelman at godaddy.com [mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:25 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: briancute at afilias.info; Chris Disspain; at-review at icann.org
Subject: RE: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS

 

Manal

Yes that is correct.

 

Warren

Warren Adelman
President & COO
GoDaddy.com <http://GoDaddy.com> 
warren at godaddy.com <mailto:warren at godaddy.com> 

twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract <http://twitter.com/asocialcontract> 
http://www.godaddy.com <http://www.godaddy.com> 

 

	-------- Original Message --------
	Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Version 10 - CONCERNS
	From: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> >
	Date: Sun, October 24, 2010 6:09 am
	To: <briancute at afilias.info <mailto:briancute at afilias.info> >, "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> >, 
	<at-review at icann.org <mailto:at-review at icann.org> >

	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>  [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> ] 
	Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:09 PM
	To: briancute at afilias.info <mailto:briancute at afilias.info> ; at-review at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>  [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:AT-Review at icann.org> 
	https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20101025/acbdb221/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the AT-Review mailing list