Hi, Looks good. Thanks for adding the 1-10 scale. And the metrics at the end is a good addition. In addition to having this released as a document people can respond to with another document, is it worth turning it into a form on line as well. thanks avri On 30 Mar 2013, at 18:38, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
Apologies for not providing these comments/edits earlier (just back from travel). The executive summary of the edits:
- tried to make the questions more quantitative by asking for a response along a scale (1 to 10). As mentioned on the call, I do not think a binary yes/no for most of the questions provides particularly useful information since I suspect most folks will want to answer "sometimes yes, sometimes no". - asked for more suggestions of metrics - various consistency and consolidation edits trying to make the questions more readable (at least for me).
With respect to the comments, I found a number of places in which I was confused about what was being referenced. Perhaps that's just me, however.
FWIW, use as you see fit.
Regards, -drc
<Structuring Public Comment Questions - v5-drc.docx>
On Mar 30, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
Latest version of the document including Avri's question.
Last question for you Carlos, regarding the suggested edit to question # 10 that appears in v.4. Please let me know if that is consistent with your intent. Thank you.
Regards, Brian
On 3/30/13 9:00 AM, "Brian Cute" <bcute@pir.org> wrote:
Avri,
I added your question re: the PDP. Upon further review, the question on Improving Accountability and Transparency near the end of the document is drafted as a "catch all." I revised it to add the word "questions" that the ATRT2 should be reviewing. Does that sufficiently capture the question your were trying to pose?
Carlos,
I edited question #10 to read "ICANN" instead of "ICANN community." Is that consistent with your intent?
I would like this to be the last revision so we can get the questions published. Please respond rapidly.
Regards, Brian
On 3/30/13 8:04 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> wrote:
On 30 Mar 2013, at 00:20, Brian Cute wrote:
Avri,
Leaving out the last question was an oversight. I can insert it in the final version.
Thanks
Is the edit to your question re: Staff and the PDP satisfactory or do you have a proposed construction?
Does the following (or some variant) work?
What is your assessment of ICANN Staff adherence to the policy decisions of the ICANN Policy Development Process in its operational activities. Has ICANN Staff been accountable to the ICANN community in its activities? Can you give examples of where ICANN Staff has restricted its decision-making to the boundaries set by the Policy Development Processes? Can you give examples where ICANN Staff has gone beyond the ICANN Community Policy Development Process to either make new policy or replace existing policy without Community development process or consultation? Are there specific accountability issues the ATRT2 should explore related to ICANN Staff's interactions with the Community Policy Development Process?
Thanks
avri
Thanks.
Brian
On 3/29/13 10:40 PM, "Avril Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
I was not able to open what I received, but I was able to pull it from the archive.
Re 9.1 (e)
" To what extent has ICANN Staff been bound its decision-making by the ICANn Policy Development Process? " " To what extent has ICANN Staff been accountable in its decision-making? "
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
<Structuring Public Comment Questions - v5.docx>_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2