<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>For ease of version control of
the document, we’ve talked with Brian about some suggested revisions to address
the concerns below and will await the next version of the document from Brian.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Fiona<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
at-review-bounces@icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Larry Strickling<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> briancute@afilias.info; at-review@icann.org;
ugasser@cyber.law.harvard.edu; 'Caroline Nolan'; rfaris@cyber.law.harvard.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AT-Review] Draft - next version<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Brian,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I still have a lot of issues
with respect to the findings and recommendations of Working Group 4. Some
material that I thought was going to be excised or rewritten has remained in
the text. So here are my comments/objections. But so that I just do
not raise objections we (or rather Fiona) are preparing a red-line to deal with
my concerns as well as some organizational issues we have with the current
draft.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Findings and Recommendations<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I assume these paragraphs
represent findings of the ATRT. If so, I do not agree with the finding
that the ATRT is concerned that “none of the three accountability mechanisms
can review and potentially reverse ICANN decisions with binding
authority.” I agree that others have raised this issue in comments but I
do not believe it is the consensus view of the review team. Plus I do not
understand why we would make that our primary factual finding when the
remaining paragraphs in the section focus more on whether the various review mechanisms
are independent of the Board. If this paragraph is reworded to say that
the ATRT heard concerns of this nature, I would have no objection provided that
language is added to indicate that we also heard that having such a mechanism
would create a new set of accountability and transparency issues by assigning
to some new, unnamed set of individuals the power to overturn Board decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the same section, I cannot
agree with the characterization of the standard for reconsideration requests as
being “exceedingly difficult” to satisfy. The Bylaws contain a very
reasonable standard in terms of seeking reconsideration of a Board decision and
do not agree that a looser standard would allow more “meaningful” review of
Board actions. Similarly, I cannot subscribe to the idea in the next
paragraph that because IRP decisions are non-binding, “there is no true
accountability for the ICANN Board.” My view, as articulated in
Cambridge, is that creating a binding review process reduces the accountability
of the Board and does not enhance it. Again, I do not mind if both
competing views are expressed but as currently drafted, I dissent from the
findings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the recommendations section,
I do not agree to direct the Board to change the grounds upon which a
Reconsideration request is brought to something “less restrictive,”
particularly if we ourselves are unable to suggest a new standard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the second IRP paragraph, I
do not necessarily agree that the Board must “improve accessibility [of the IRP
process] to the community.” As we have discussed, the overall set of
review mechanisms in the Bylaws provide a graduated set of options for anyone
aggrieved by a Board decision. The easiest to invoke is the ombudsman
(and I agree with recommendation to improve the independence of the
ombudsman), then one can seek reconsideration if there was a flaw or
deficit in the information considered by the Board in reaching a
decision. Third is the IRP, which should be the toughest remedy
available. I think we should not disturb this basic taxonomy of remedies
which we do threaten by trying to make each remedy equally easy for an
aggrieved party to use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>In the third IRP paragraph, I
thought the majority view was not to propose an IRP light.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Community Revote. Since we
have spent no time discussing this option in any substantive way, I object to
the finding that we have “doubts whether community revote would be effective
given the extraordinarily high level of consensus required to re-examine a
Board decision.” I’m not saying I believe a revote is a good idea—only
that I do not know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the
other. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I agree with Fabio’s suggestion
earlier today to move the legal discussion earlier in the document but again,
we need to state that the issue here is primarily a policy judgment and that
there is difference of views within the ATRT as to whether off-loading Board
decisions to a new, undefined review panel increases or decreases Board
accountability and whether to do so will just create a new set of A/T issues
with respect to the review panel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
at-review-bounces@icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Brian Cute<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:48 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> at-review@icann.org; ugasser@cyber.law.harvard.edu; 'Caroline
Nolan'; rfaris@cyber.law.harvard.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [AT-Review] Draft - next version<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>RT,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Attached is the next version of the draft which incorporates
our discussion from the call yesterday. Please note and review the
following changes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Berkman statement of methodology – p.3<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Revised description of PPC activities – p. 29<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Corrected quote from public comment – pp. 29-30<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Cheryl’s definition of Cross Community deliberation – p. 29<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>WG3 Findings – p. 31<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>WG3 revised recommendation #8 – p.32<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>WG3 revised recommendation #9 – p.33 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>WG4 – please read in entirety. Substantial edits
provided by Chris.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>ATRT RFI to ICANN Staff – text from Staff response – p.37-39<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>California law summary (reviewed and edited by Berkman) –
p.42-43<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>One point from our call that is not yet addressed in the
draft is Larry’s point concerning the IRP undertaking de novo review.
Please offer language for inclusion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Note that I will do further editing to address grammar,
style, structure and citations. If anyone has edits to suggest on this
front please send them to me.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Brian <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>