Two Questions on Annex 9
I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews): 1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21) 2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164) Thanks! Greg
Interesting Greg. I haven’t gone back to check regarding whether all our comments were addressed, but I know we indicated those same two problems with Annex 9 in our comments prior to the issuance of the third draft proposal. It may make sense in preparation for the next draft to go back through now and highlight any other items that were not addressed. HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 11:02 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9 I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews): 1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21) 2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164) Thanks! Greg **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
That's not exactly a confidence-builder with regard to the "readiness for prime time" of the document as a whole.... Greg On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote:
Interesting Greg. I haven’t gone back to check regarding whether all our comments were addressed, but I know we indicated those same two problems with Annex 9 in our comments prior to the issuance of the third draft proposal.
It may make sense in preparation for the next draft to go back through now and highlight any other items that were not addressed.
*HOLLY J. GREGORY *Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice
*Sidley Austin LLP* 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com www.sidley.com
[image: http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png] <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 04, 2015 11:02 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9
I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews):
1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21)
2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164)
Thanks!
Greg
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
In a document this size and with so many moving pieces there are bound to be some glitches. I think these are minor in nature, but it does underscore the value in using this time to have someone go through and do a thorough proof read to identify anything that needs to be fixed for the next draft. HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 2:22 PM To: Gregory, Holly Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ACCT-Staff; Rosemary E. Fei Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9 That's not exactly a confidence-builder with regard to the "readiness for prime time" of the document as a whole.... Greg On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>> wrote: Interesting Greg. I haven’t gone back to check regarding whether all our comments were addressed, but I know we indicated those same two problems with Annex 9 in our comments prior to the issuance of the third draft proposal. It may make sense in preparation for the next draft to go back through now and highlight any other items that were not addressed. HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853<tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853> holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 11:02 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9 I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews): 1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21) 2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164) Thanks! Greg **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************
Greg — The two questions you raise are closely related, I think. Para 21 is the one with footnote 2. It reads: Community stakeholder groups should appoint their own representatives to Review Teams. Regarding composition and size of review teams, based on composition of prior Review Teams, 21 ReviewTeam members from Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would be more than needed. [2] While I did not have footnote 2 in my submission for para 21, it seems the document editors intended to refer to the table showing participation in previous AoC Reviews (para 128-164). It should be easy to repair the missing link during proofreading. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2015 at 11:01 AM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Two Questions on Annex 9 I have two questions on Annex 9 (AoC Reviews): 1. Footnote 2 is empty. What is supposed to be there? (Para 21) 2. There is a table showing the composition of past AoC review teams. There is no introduction or explanatory text associated with this table. What is the significance of the table supposed to be? (Paras. 128-164) Thanks! Greg
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Gregory, Holly -
Steve DelBianco