[atrt2] Template 28 & 29

[Brian Cute]

Thanks Alan. Got it.

On 10/4/13 11:36 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>Brian, as per our discussion earlier this evening, I have redrafted
>the template to address my concerns. Specifically:
>
>1. I integrated the revised section on community input that was added
>to the original template after you made the changes.
>
>2. Restored the intent of the first sentence of the analysis section.
>
>3. Put back in, but re-worded the section on ensuring negotiation in
>good faith and added a section of the issue of the Board responding
>to pressure after the fact. It is justified by the discussions of the
>Chairs group and by several comments.
>
>4. I restored the recommendation on GAC involvements. In his last
>draft, Larry does have a place holder Rec (#10) pending the Expert
>report, but it is very general and avoids mentioning the GNSO and
>PDP. I am sure they can be melded, but don't have the stamina to try
>now. The text included is very carefully worded to not prescribe HOW
>to fix the problem, but that the end-result of getting interaction is
>the target. I would suggest that we leave them as is in this draft.
>
>5. I have re-worked the Rec on getting wider involvement. It is a key
>issue identified in the Experet report as well as several comments.
>Paul is correct in the it IS aspirational. It may be that parts of it
>are not practical to achieve now or in the foreseeable future. But we
>DO need to look at the issue and not put our heads in the ground. The
>re-work makes it clear this is not a demand to fix the problem, but
>to start looking at it and look for opportunities.
>
>6. Re-wording of the Amend PDP procedures  to make them more
>understandable (I did not know what "ICANN should assist the Board"
>meant).
>
>You can take it from here. If you feel that section I added back need
>to go, so be it.
>
>Alan
>
>At 03/10/2013 11:04 AM, Brian Cute wrote:
>>Avri and Alan,
>>
>>Paul and I offer some friendly edits to the template.  Please take a
>>look at the redlined version and further iterate the document (there
>>is a clean version as well).  The suggested edits where not intended
>>to change substance or "direction."  Rather to add to what was there
>>and with a view toward consistency across the entire report from a
>>structural standpoint.  We have also done an edit of the 12-16, 35
>>and 36 template that I will send shortly.  Please take as friendly
>>amendments and edit to a final state as you see fit.
>>
>>Best,
>>Brian
>>