Tim, in answer to your comments:

In section 2 of the RSEP process - asking what "competition issues" could mean and giving several examples, I think that the answer may be yes. This is text in existing ICANN policy and presumably it is open to some interpretations.

On replacing "scope-creep in the extreme" with "vast expansion of ICANN's scope", I have kept the less formal wording. "scope-creep" is the bug-a-boo that some in the CCWG continually raise as the reason for putting in some of the more Draconian mission changes. I think it right to throw the term back at them. In our formal comment, we will be a bit more genteel.

Alan

At 14/12/2015 10:01 AM, Timothy Denton wrote:
Alan:
Sometimes to understand a document I have to edit it.

If any of these edits are of assistance to you and others, good. Their purpose was merely to put into correct or comprehensible English at some points where the draft text was not grammatical,  or idiomatic, or where, in one case, the text was incoherent.

TMD
 

On 12/14/2015 1:19 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The IANA Issues WG met on Friday to discuss possible issue on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd draft proposal.

The CCWG documents can be founds at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56145016.

The document discussed at the IANA-Issues meeting can be found linked to the Agenda Item 3 of https://community.icann.org/x/PIdlAw (entitled Review of Proposal and Potential ALAC Positions).

We need to send a summary of our comments to the CCWG today (in time for a CCWG meeting on Tuesday at 06:00 UTC). The attached document summarizes the issues as modified by the discussion during the teleconference.

Please send any comments in sufficient time for me to integrate them (as appropriate) into the documents. In particular, is there anything here that is counter to the tone or detail of the discussion?

The Final Public Comment must be submitted no later than 21 December. It will no doubt closely follow the attached document, but may well include other issues that come to light over the next days.

As ALL ALAC member will be asked to vote on the Public Comments and will ultimately have to decide whether to ratify the CCWG Proposal, this is both important and time-sensitive.

To the extent that is possible and you feel appropriate, please involve your RALOs.

Alan




_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online:
http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

--
Timothy Denton 613-789-5397 line 613 222 1850 cell

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC )