Dear ATRT2, Staff has identified several areas of the ATRT2 Draft Report where we believe there is an opportunity to clear up some inaccuracies. Staff would like to call your attention to the items detailed below. Once you've had a chance to review and consider these items, and if you agree that they should be corrected, then a Correction List can be created and published as an Addendum to the Draft Report. Since the Draft Report is scheduled to be published for Public Comment today and to stay on the previously discussed schedule, addressing the items noted below via a Correction List would be the best way to proceed. Best regards, Larisa From: Samantha Eisner Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:13 AM To: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: Amy Stathos Subject: ATRT2 Report - inaccuracies Importance: High Hi Larisa - The following are 4 items - not from the executive summary - that we recommend that the ATRT2 take a second look at prior to publication of the report to help clear up some inaccuracies. Please let us know if you have questions. 1. Page 17: "Until August 2012, ICANN's Board consisted of all-volunteer, non-compensated Directors" - This is inaccurate. After the December 2011 Resolution approving Board compensation, while there was time needed to allow for structuring of payment and Board member election of compensation, all Board members who initially elected compensation were compensated on a retroactive basis to the time of the resolution. No matter the start date of the compensation in 2012, all board members that elected compensation had the expectation of compensation - which was met - going back to December 2011. The wording of this statement in the report is inaccurate as it suggests that Board members did not receive compensation for their service for periods prior to August 2012, which is wrong. In addition, the Board Chair was eligible for compensation beginning in 2010, and received payment prior to August 2012. 2. Page 21: "This question is difficult to explore given the nature of redactions. ATRT2 has put this question to ICANN Staff for feedback as to the proper scope of redaction could be reasonably confirmed and is awaiting Staff's reply" - At the meeting with the ATRT2 in L.A., staff posed the question back to the ATRT2 that we required further information on the community concerns relating to redaction before we could address this issue. We have not received any further communication on this issue from the ATRT2, and as previously expressed, do not have the ability to answer this question as posed, without specific reference to concerns. This statement appears to inaccurately reflect the status of the communication on this issue. 3. Page 24-25: The GAC has submitted edits to the document and the revised text remains to be reviewed/approved by the Board. The Board then will need to develop Bylaws amendments that would impose a time limit and require a super majority of the Board in order to reject GAC advice. - This does not accurately reflect the work that was done or the status of the implementation. The revisions were not drafted by the GAC, they were jointly drafted through the BGRI Working Group, which includes members of the Board. The BGRI has also requested that Bylaws revisions NOT be drafted/put through at this time to allow for more holistic Bylaws revisions that may be necessitated, so as not to take these issues piecemeal. It is inaccurate to suggest that the Board is failing to take action in this instance when it is expressly following the request of the BGRI to NOT do something. Further, the Board, through the Chair, has indicated that the consultation process as designed - including the higher voting threshold - will be used when/if Board-GAC consultation is necessary. This is implemented in principle, and the statement in the report does not reflect this reality. 4. Page 43 - Reconsideration review - on 13-3, the Board, through the NGPC, actually accepted reconsideration of the issue, though the ultimate decision was that the action should not be overturned. This is different from the Board denying reconsideration, which is what happened in the other instances cited. -- Samantha Eisner Senior Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 samantha.eisner@icann.org<mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org>