[atrt2] FW: LAST CHANCE FOR EDITS!

Thu Dec 19 00:02:02 UTC 2013

Dear Larisa,

apologies for not coming back to you earlier - I was travelling again
with meetings in a 3rd country & was therefore offline for the past 18
hours.

The notes which you quoted in your message are old and I believe have
all been incorporated in the latest version of the document that was
distributed.

The notes I was referring to on the call are attached.

Summarising:

1. I am asking about points of view on Raimundo Beca's comments - but
received no feedback from anyone on this.
2. I pointed out to a comment from Chuck Gomes et al. which I do not
think was addressed.
3. The note suggestion made by public comment contributors re: use of
"equitable participation" which might be an unachievable goal and a
suggestion to have "equitable opportunity to participate"
4. a question about 10.4 (which was also from comments received during
the PC -- the Board over-ruling the GNSO PDP process?
5. My (then) suggestions for strengthening Recommendation 8 - please
note that I believe this has been superceded by the friendly amendment
from Lise & Fiona Asonga (as discussed on the call)
6. noting the missing of bullets on P.42 "Assessment of Recommendation
Effectiveness"
7. Noting that SSR-RT implementation review page C-39 is messed up &
have eaten up part of the ALAC response/comment.
8. My concern re: the overall conclusion of SSR-RT // although I do NOT
have replacement text for this because ultimately since the SSR-RT
section is (a) an appendix and (b) does not contain any recommendations,
I doubt anyone will act on it.
9. My overall concern re: the emphasis on Recommendations at the cost of
Observations which I aired on the recent call and which Brian promised
to work something out for.

Thanks,

Olivier

On 17/12/2013 23:41, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
>
> Olivier,
>
> Please clarify if this is the communication you were referring to in
> regards to your edits to the body of the report and the Appendices? It
> would be helpful if you could indicate specifically what changes you
> would like staff to include in the most recent version of the report. 
> If you were referencing a more recent communication, then I apologize
> for the confusion and omission and look forward to getting your
> clarification as soon as feasible.
>
>  
>
> Thank you,
>
>  
>
> Larisa
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 4:13 PM
> *To:* Brian Cute
> *Cc:* atrt2 at icann.org (atrt2 at icann.org)
> *Subject:* Re: [atrt2] LAST CHANCE FOR EDITS!
>
>  
>
> Dear Brian,
>
> as I explained in my earlier message, I was involved in a car accident
> yesterday, with no injury but which took most of my time to finalise
> my comments. I do apologise. I sent you an incomplete review of the
> document an hour ago. All in all, I managed to re-read the whole
> document again including it's 2nd half & have made a few more
> observations, all included in the attached file.
>
> On the whole, I am pleased with the *substance* of the draft. I have
> also read the *final* copy which you have sent to Larisa, Charla &
> Alice. My over-arching concern, which I did express in DC but which
> does not appear to have been caught, whilst I read the final master,
> is that the *new recommendations* which have come as a result of ATRT1
> recommendation reviews are not clearly identifiable.
>
> Also, headers for the ATRT1 recommendations are inconsistent,
> sometimes called ATRT1 recommendation X, sometimes called
> "Recommendation X". And then some headers, even in the final copy, say
> "Assessment of ATRT1 Recommendation 18, 19, 22" and another one
> "Assessment of ATRT2 Recommendation... etc." That's probably
> erroneous... and this makes for confusing reading.
>
> I hope that Larisa & her Team will be able to fix this.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 10/10/2013 23:56, Brian Cute wrote:
>
>     Review Team,
>
>      
>
>     Attached is the latest draft of the Report and Recommendations.
>      Please carefully note the following:
>
>      
>
>     1.  Provide only SUBSTANTIVE AND CRITICAL edits you may have on
>     the SUBSTANCE of the draft within 24 hours, or by 10:00p.m. UTC
>     tomorrow.
>
>      
>
>     2.  Ignore edits concerning numbering, missing citations, spelling
>     etc.  Paul and I will continue over the next 24 hours to clean up
>     the document so clean, correctly numbered version will go out for
>     public comment.  We will take any substantive and critical edits
>     provided by 10:00p.m. UTC tomorrow and work them into the
>     document.  Our plan is to send the document to ICANN staff by
>     11:00p.m. UTC tomorrow to begin the translation process.
>
>      
>
>     3.  The Report will indicate that it is a draft that is subject to
>     change based on Community input and continuing assessment by ATRT2
>     before the Final Report and Recommendations issue.
>
>      
>
>     Thanks to all.
>
>      
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Brian
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     atrt2 mailing list
>
>     atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
>
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131219/4917296c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notes on public comment feedback and others.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131219/4917296c/Notesonpubliccommentfeedbackandothers-0001.doc>