Hello Milton,
What they are asking is fine, but it should be that they confirm/believe it's consistent with the recommendations (to the best of their knowledge). The statement by the legal team did not confirm that. It instead implies that such confirmation will come on the publication day which IMO is not what has been done in the past.
I am not underestimating the capacity of the "volunteer" CCWG but i am not so certain we could review all these effectively, but if what is provided to us is a document that has been agreed to by the DUO then there is the likelihood that we may only be seeing some few inconsistencies and way be missing just a few if any at all. While this current process can continue (even though I would have preferred to avoid this back and forth), I am of the opinion that it will be good to have a review period after legal confirm draft before publishing for PC.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typosOn 3 Apr 2016 22:35, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:Well, Seun, maybe they are asking us for our opinion as to whether the draft meets the recommendations and if not, what needs to change. (Or am I too optimistic about the process?)
I don't think it's all helpful to be reviewing a document that has not be agreed to by the DUO to accurately reflect the intent of the proposal(s). The idea is that if such action has happened prior to the CCWG/CWG looking at the draft then there will be less possibility of missing critical parts of the document.
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community