Dear Larisa, apologies for not coming back to you earlier - I was travelling again with meetings in a 3rd country & was therefore offline for the past 18 hours. The notes which you quoted in your message are old and I believe have all been incorporated in the latest version of the document that was distributed. The notes I was referring to on the call are attached. Summarising: 1. I am asking about points of view on Raimundo Beca's comments - but received no feedback from anyone on this. 2. I pointed out to a comment from Chuck Gomes et al. which I do not think was addressed. 3. The note suggestion made by public comment contributors re: use of "equitable participation" which might be an unachievable goal and a suggestion to have "equitable opportunity to participate" 4. a question about 10.4 (which was also from comments received during the PC -- the Board over-ruling the GNSO PDP process? 5. My (then) suggestions for strengthening Recommendation 8 - please note that I believe this has been superceded by the friendly amendment from Lise & Fiona Asonga (as discussed on the call) 6. noting the missing of bullets on P.42 "Assessment of Recommendation Effectiveness" 7. Noting that SSR-RT implementation review page C-39 is messed up & have eaten up part of the ALAC response/comment. 8. My concern re: the overall conclusion of SSR-RT // although I do NOT have replacement text for this because ultimately since the SSR-RT section is (a) an appendix and (b) does not contain any recommendations, I doubt anyone will act on it. 9. My overall concern re: the emphasis on Recommendations at the cost of Observations which I aired on the recent call and which Brian promised to work something out for. Thanks, Olivier On 17/12/2013 23:41, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:

Olivier,

Please clarify if this is the communication you were referring to in regards to your edits to the body of the report and the Appendices? It would be helpful if you could indicate specifically what changes you would like staff to include in the most recent version of the report. If you were referencing a more recent communication, then I apologize for the confusion and omission and look forward to getting your clarification as soon as feasible.

Thank you,

Larisa

*From:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 4:13 PM *To:* Brian Cute *Cc:* atrt2@icann.org (atrt2@icann.org) *Subject:* Re: [atrt2] LAST CHANCE FOR EDITS!

Dear Brian,

as I explained in my earlier message, I was involved in a car accident yesterday, with no injury but which took most of my time to finalise my comments. I do apologise. I sent you an incomplete review of the document an hour ago. All in all, I managed to re-read the whole document again including it's 2nd half & have made a few more observations, all included in the attached file.

On the whole, I am pleased with the *substance* of the draft. I have also read the *final* copy which you have sent to Larisa, Charla & Alice. My over-arching concern, which I did express in DC but which does not appear to have been caught, whilst I read the final master, is that the *new recommendations* which have come as a result of ATRT1 recommendation reviews are not clearly identifiable.

Also, headers for the ATRT1 recommendations are inconsistent, sometimes called ATRT1 recommendation X, sometimes called "Recommendation X". And then some headers, even in the final copy, say "Assessment of ATRT1 Recommendation 18, 19, 22" and another one "Assessment of ATRT2 Recommendation... etc." That's probably erroneous... and this makes for confusing reading.

I hope that Larisa & her Team will be able to fix this.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 10/10/2013 23:56, Brian Cute wrote:

Review Team,

Attached is the latest draft of the Report and Recommendations. Please carefully note the following:

1. Provide only SUBSTANTIVE AND CRITICAL edits you may have on the SUBSTANCE of the draft within 24 hours, or by 10:00p.m. UTC tomorrow.

2. Ignore edits concerning numbering, missing citations, spelling etc. Paul and I will continue over the next 24 hours to clean up the document so clean, correctly numbered version will go out for public comment. We will take any substantive and critical edits provided by 10:00p.m. UTC tomorrow and work them into the document. Our plan is to send the document to ICANN staff by 11:00p.m. UTC tomorrow to begin the translation process.

3. The Report will indicate that it is a draft that is subject to change based on Community input and continuing assessment by ATRT2 before the Final Report and Recommendations issue.

Thanks to all.

Regards,

Brian

_______________________________________________

atrt2 mailing list

atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html