[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 8 - Reconsideration - 1st reading conclusions

[Greg Shatan]

Do we have input from the Ombudsman about the second point?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
wrote:

> *Sent on behalf of CoChairs *
>
> 1. The following concerns will be addressed in implementation:
>
> ¥ Concerns raised during comment:
>
> i. There is a recommendation that this tool should not be regarded in
> isolation but rather as one among other mechanisms.
> ii. • Concern was raised that the ombudsman is not sufficiently equipped
> and knowledgeable to do substantive evaluation. It is also suggested that
> an independent party, such as the Ombudsman, provide an initial assessment
> to the Board as to the merit of any and all Reconsideration Requests.
> iii. • There is a call for Reconsideration Requests to be transparent and
> fully communicated to all ICANN stakeholders.
>
>
> Second reading is planned for Thursday, 28 January.
>
> Best regards
>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160122/b47e036c/attachment-0001.html>