[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on final draft
julie.hammer at bigpond.com
Mon Feb 15 11:51:56 UTC 2016
The SSAC supports the inclusion of text in Annex 4, as suggested by Andrew, to specify that the recall powers do not extend to liaisons.
On 15 Feb 2016, at 1:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
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.
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.
¶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.
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community