[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on final draft

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 19:34:58 UTC 2016

Dear All,
Certainly we need a careful prof reading on  paragraph numbering , steps numbering , after suppressing conference calls, grammatical mistakes without in any way touching or altering the substance this should be done after we review comments.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Feb 2016, at 16:48, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list