-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear David, Larisa, thanks for your follow-up in this. I have read through the whole document again & am happy with the changes & the correction of the typographical/formatting error in the ALAC's note. My comment on Recommendation 27 is quite simple. Currently, it reads: "ATRT2 Assessment of Recommendation Effectiveness Based on the comments referenced above and similar comments both in other public comments and relayed during the ICANN Durban meeting, there may be some question as to whether the Westlake Governance DNS Risk Framework is ?comprehensive within the scope of ICANN?s SSR remit and limited missions? however it must be acknowledged that comprehensiveness is a matter of opinion and those opinions appear to vary significantly." I have a concern that we're already making no Recommendations of our own, thus all of the text is tagged as "observations" - which is weak - and the language used in this particular paragraph is particularly weak. I suggest strengthening the message as: "ATRT2 Assessment of Recommendation Effectiveness Based on the comments referenced above and similar comments both in other public comments and relayed during the ICANN Durban meeting, there is some question as to whether the Westlake Governance DNS Risk Framework is "comprehensive within the scope of ICANN's SSR remit and limited missions". However, comprehensiveness is a matter of opinion and those opinions vary significantly, which is cause for concern." - --- end of quote --- I hope that this stands a better chance for the Board to check whether to act on this observation, cross-check the scope of ICANN's SSR remit and check if the Westlake report actually fills that remit. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 17:35, David Conrad wrote:
Larisa,
The edits look fine to me, however I gather Olivier has some concern regarding the write up of SSR Rec 27:
"Recommendation 27 review is too complacent."
as well as a view that the commentary for that recommendation does not reflect the ALAC statement. I'm happy to revise, but am unsure how to address his concerns without additional information.
Regards, -drc
On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> wrote:
David,
Please review the proposed edits to Appendix C ? SSR Review Implementation and provide staff with your final edits by 16 UTC on Friday, 20 December.
Thank you,
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
<Appendix C - SSR Assessment 19 Dec.docx>
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSs4PQAAoJENb2Jfn69hcjbDUH/1inXqTuwujkjzO9GDTZzE+I F7+fkFT3pTIfYXb2zb33zLCMmrdgZ65+S4Zeo3y87K924oso+b4iWenXA1UaZC57 /Nk8gAsL2sXIq1bZJlniw0kPrGkIkXC9Q7hX1OVwqA6g/TUq3AUtbOeIinBLDuof k1bw4yKf7zcRZD+PgEvd1nGWwn0cFcbGJwphLgbbD01Rr3LrHxgIkCfQco/V61dT KW8fud5DttlBK/HbQfRQv5hmYWIPD7lhLqmGKBaGsDfVm7ziJBQbFjdW+ZTJK4El ojUm/2Vn1SMh4b0Kya9nV2hHnrDc2rXlPZxQ9/qAyZA9g/gPP7poiUK2S8u6V5I= =chLm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----