[WP1] WP1: Draft 5, with all Affirmation Reviews implemented as Bylaws changes

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Having gotten into the discussion late, I just read this.

I think it is mostly fine and only have a few comments.

The start off with I think it is important that we do not try to make
the recommendations of review teams mandatory.  their 'enforcement' come
from their cyclical nature and from the ATRT being able to review not
only the implementation of previous ATRT recommendations, but whether
other reviews have


> The Board shall take action[_consider approval and begin
> implementation_] within six months of receipt of the recommendations.
>
So in this one I agree with the bracketed text and agree with the deletion.

On this reading one other comment I have:

> (f) assessing the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented
> the recommendations arising out of the other periodic reviews required
> by this section.
>

Should read

(f) assessing the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented
the recommendations arising out of  previous  ATRT reviews as well as
the other periodic reviews required by this section.


Or  possibly shorter:

(f) assessing the extent to which the Board and staff have implemented
the recommendations arising out of the periodic reviews required by this
section.




with regard to
>
> [note: Kavouss asked that we not review ‘effectiveness of the GAC;
> Jordan asked whether the other structural reviews look at
> ‘effectiveness’. They do not. ]
>

I think by effective the NTIA meant, do the governments have adequate
voice in this set up and not are they doing their work effectively.  I
have no issue with it being removed, but I think it important to
understand the meaning.  I.e is the GAC a means for giving governments
and effective voice

Also we might want to put something in the bylaw that have become
process, such as yearly accountabilty and transparency report from ICANN
as part of its annula reporting mix.  Also require yearly reports oon
the implementation status on all review based recommendations.  So a
section on reporting requirements might be worth adding.

thanks

avri



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150320/fa0b6db8/attachment.html>