re
Please note:  11 comments/reply comments in response to the draft ATRT2 Report have been filed.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13/  Please read the comments and if dits to Recommendations are warranted based on the comments, please submit your suggestions as well as quotes from the comments in question to the ATRT2 email list NO LATER THAN Monday, December 16.  Thank you.

  1. IPC on public comments: Quote
    "It should not be an insurmountable task for ICANN to differentiate among two or three broad categories of public comment processes. Proposals that address major policy issues; that have resulted from contentious debate and discussion among broad segments of the ICANN community; or that address topics that have attracted large numbers of detailed and analytic public comments in the past, should fall in a category for which extensive public comment periods (and reply periods) should be allotted, perhaps up to 90 and 30 days respectively. Issues that are less broadly applicable, that are more technical, that have moved swiftly and without contention up to the point of public comment, or that concern topics that have not, in the past, attracted much public comment, could be on a faster timetable. Although ATRT-1 called for such “prioritization and stratification,” this has not occurred. ATRT-2 should insist on it."
  2. Egypt's comments should be considered with car and in full!
  3. Burr Diaz & Gomez: "A more realistic term would be ‘equitable opportunity to participate’." I love it!!!!
  4. USCouncil for International Business:

furthermore also from USCIB




Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
NEW email    carlosraul@gutierrez.se
Skype            carlos.raulg
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA



On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
All,

This is a reminder that edits to Recommendations are due tomorrow.  To that end, I tool notes of some discussion on the ATRT2 call this week.  Per my notes, the following modifications to the draft Recommendations could be considered by ATRT2:

Rec. 1 – eliminate Recommendation regarding measuring performance of individual Directors.

Rec. 3 – need information from NomComm regarding Board candidate data before modifying Recommendation.

Rec. 4 – adopt "policy v. implementation" vernacular and eliminate "administrative" and "executive."

Rec. 9.3.2 – refer to "the office of Ombudsman" not "the Ombudsman" in text.  Ensure that the distinction between employee acting with respect to "policy" v. "internal" functions is clear for any new areas of Ombudsman jurisdiction. Consider making mediation as a tool of the office of the Ombudman" explicit.

9.4.2 – Modify from "Transparency Report" to "Transparency and Accountability Report."

9.4.3 – Need to clarify "other information" and "Chatham rule" reference.

6.1.1 – Consider "illustrative v. prescriptive" issue.

6.8 – Consider whether text implies GAC is dictating the working methods of Staff.

If ATRT2 members (in particularly assigned editors) captured other notes that could modify Recommendations, please be prepared to discuss them on the call tomorrow.

Also, Larisa sent a document with proposed edits to Recommendations from Staff, based on the discussion on our call this week.  Please review that document and be prepared to discuss it on our call tomorrow.    

Please note:  11 comments/reply comments in response to the draft ATRT2 Report have been filed.  http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-recommendations-21oct13/  Please read the comments and if dits to Recommendations are warranted based on the comments, please submit your suggestions as well as quotes from the comments in question to the ATRT2 email list NO LATER THAN Monday, December 16.  Thank you.

Regards,
Brian

_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2