[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on final draft

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Sun Feb 14 18:13:14 UTC 2016


One of my IAB colleagues also went through the document, and noticed a
couple places where the text says "protocol[s] and parameters" instead
of "protocol parameters".  I am pretty sure this has come up before,
and probably I've just become inured to it.  But it should definitely
be "protocol parameters".  IANA doesn't register protocols.  It
registers parameters for protocols.  This is a simple matter of global
search and replace.

Best regards,


On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48:49AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been through the final draft with an eye to issues that I thought
> were important after the 3d draft.  Here's what I noticed.
>     ANNEX 4
> In Annex 4, in the discussion of removing directors, I recall some
> discussion in one call about liaisons to the board.  We concluded that
> the recall powers did not extend to those liaisons.  Those liaisons
> are treated by ICANN as non-voting board members, though, so
> presumably this section needs to mention that the recall powers don't
> extend to the liasons.  It's implicit in the text, but could be made
> explicit.  I suggest a parenthetical sentence or footnote at the end
> of ¶40.  Here's one suggestion: "Note that this power applies only to
> voting members of the ICANN Board, and not to liaisons."
> I should note that the diagrams  and the headlines in this section are
> numbered differently.  Step 3 is  the community forum, but the diagram
> says Step 4; I think that's where the disconnect happens).
> At ¶50 (which is either step 5 or step 6 ;-) ) there's a bullet,
> "Naming a replacement".  It'd be a good idea to call out here that the
> actual mechanism by which the replacement is named hasn't actually
> been established yet, and needs to be sorted out in WS2.
> The same clarification about liaisons could be made clear in ¶60,
> probably in the parenthetical bit "(except the CEO)".
> In ¶77, "The right to reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews
> of IANA functions" should say "The right to reject ICANN Board
> decisions relating to reviews of IANA naming functions", in keeping
> with ¶75 and the section title.  I think this is important in light of
> the IAB comment that draft 3 was not clear enough that the IANA
> functions IRP reviews were not adequately limited in scope.
>     ANNEX 5
> ¶11, the mission.
>     Item 1 says, 'Coordinates the allocation and assignment of in the
>     root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS").'
> There appears to be a word missing, after "of".  I think "labels",
> "names", or maybe "delegations" are ok.  I very much prefer the first
> of these, and note that "delegations" is probably too narrow since it
> wouldn't cover things like glue records.  Also, bullet 1 (starting
> with "For which uniform or coordinated") has italics at the end (not
> sure whether that's intentional) and finishes with a colon as opposed
> to a semicolon.  This is all reproduced at ¶39.  I must have missed
> this in previous iterations, and I apologise.
> I note that Annex 7 has been explicitly altered to address the IAB's
> comment about that annex.  I believe the change is in keeping with the
> IAB's comment (I haven't checked, but it'd be hard to see how not).  I
> appreciate the change.
> Best regards,
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list