[atrt2] Comment from reading the sections of Draft #3 (Clean)

[Avri Doria]

Hi,


Mostly trivial things I noticed.

While these come from reading the text, one of the observations points 
out a wording defect in one of the recommendations (9.3.B).  I do not 
think the recommended fix changes the meeting of the recommendation.

It is a good report.  Though at times reading things I 'held the pen' 
for, I wish I had done a better job.

avri


~ Page 13

In the course of its deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating 
Committee (NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations 
from, did not have

(never says from when the recommendations were not taken.  Maybe the 
from is a superfluous word?)


~ page 25 (the 9.3 b issue)

In the course of its deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating 
Committee (NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations 
from, did not have

Yet in recommendation 9.3 B we say administrative function instead of 
administration or administrative matters.

2 instances page 7 and 59 'administrative function' should be changed to 
'administration'


~ page 32

, the idea of "reverse" liaisons from ACs and SOs, as well as a Board 
liaison to the GAC

(nowhere do we define reverse liaisons. perhaps a footnote. I know 
comments are supposed to include text, but in this case, I don't know 
how to define it.  The closest I can get is "reverse liaison: a liaison 
from a group with which the GAC does have a By-Laws defined relationship.")


~ page 45

The effectiveness of implementation is qualified, but its partial 
success is not entirely due to staff performance. .

(double period)

~ page 46

During calls72  with ATRT2,

(footnote indicator in wrong font)

~ Page 53

in fact ran counter to the concept of accountability.83

[Multistakeholder Model].”84

(footnote indicators in wrong font)

~ Page 60

Report Section 12. Assessment of ATRT2 Recommendation 21


(should that be ATRT1 Recommendation?)