[Ssr2-review] SSR2 action item: Review rec 29 markup

[danko.jevtovic at board.icann.org]

Yes, happy to discuss. I've just added a comment in the doc. "My only point is 
about readers of the report, if the team writes that negotiations where closed 
they might not understand the process, and the communities' role in then-new 
RA."

I undestand that RA process was more comlicated that "closed negotiations", 
and that the comminity had a role.

D

-----Original Message-----
From: k claffy <kc at caida.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 12:49 AM
To: danko.jevtovic at board.icann.org
Cc: 'ICANN SSR2' <ssr2-review at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 action item: Review rec 29 markup



Danko,

I have a question on one of your comments.
I wonder if we can discuss on the call tomorrow:

	The new Registry Agreement wasnt part of the PDP, but it was
	part of the implementation discussion on the Application Guidebook.
	The community reviewed the draft RA several times. I believe
	that SSR2-RT recommendation would be more impactful if problem
	statements are more based on the facts.


I'm trying to figure out what is the false statement you believe is in the 
document.  This comment doesn't seem inconsistent with the sentence it's 
pointing to.

k
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20201105/c34f90d4/smime.p7s>