Avri and Alan, Paul and I offer some friendly edits to the template. Please take a look at the redlined version and further iterate the document (there is a clean version as well). The suggested edits where not intended to change substance or "direction." Rather to add to what was there and with a view toward consistency across the entire report from a structural standpoint. We have also done an edit of the 12-16, 35 and 36 template that I will send shortly. Please take as friendly amendments and edit to a final state as you see fit. Best, Brian
Brian, many comments: - You dropped the reference to the report identifying problems with respect to the GAC. - The first sentence of the Analysis changed the meaning. The original said facilitation (or whatever) is needed to address the more difficult issues. The revised version Implied that facilitation is needed for all PDPs because of the increasing difficulty. Just dropping the "increasingly" fixes it. - On the deletion of the paragraph on board threats (or deadlines if you prefer), that is one of the origins of the Rec on Board clarity on when if may intervene. - I can live with deleting the part on the New gTLD program problems, but I beleive there is a real tendency in the community to over-react and thought it should be mentioned. - Is the GAC Rec being moved somewhere else? When I was writing this, and earlier version of Larry's GAC rec did not address this, and it is a leading finding of the expert report. - The last Rec was an attempt to be terse in words and keep it general, but it was a key finding of the expert report and also related to the under-participation of those stakeholders not funded by their companies to participate. - On issue #28, I don't know what "ICANN should assist the Board" means. If you want to call about this, I will be out for a bit and back at about 5:15 EDT. Alan At 03/10/2013 11:04 AM, Brian Cute wrote:
Avri and Alan,
Paul and I offer some friendly edits to the template. Please take a look at the redlined version and further iterate the document (there is a clean version as well). The suggested edits where not intended to change substance or "direction." Rather to add to what was there and with a view toward consistency across the entire report from a structural standpoint. We have also done an edit of the 12-16, 35 and 36 template that I will send shortly. Please take as friendly amendments and edit to a final state as you see fit.
Best, Brian
Brian, as per our discussion earlier this evening, I have redrafted the template to address my concerns. Specifically: 1. I integrated the revised section on community input that was added to the original template after you made the changes. 2. Restored the intent of the first sentence of the analysis section. 3. Put back in, but re-worded the section on ensuring negotiation in good faith and added a section of the issue of the Board responding to pressure after the fact. It is justified by the discussions of the Chairs group and by several comments. 4. I restored the recommendation on GAC involvements. In his last draft, Larry does have a place holder Rec (#10) pending the Expert report, but it is very general and avoids mentioning the GNSO and PDP. I am sure they can be melded, but don't have the stamina to try now. The text included is very carefully worded to not prescribe HOW to fix the problem, but that the end-result of getting interaction is the target. I would suggest that we leave them as is in this draft. 5. I have re-worked the Rec on getting wider involvement. It is a key issue identified in the Experet report as well as several comments. Paul is correct in the it IS aspirational. It may be that parts of it are not practical to achieve now or in the foreseeable future. But we DO need to look at the issue and not put our heads in the ground. The re-work makes it clear this is not a demand to fix the problem, but to start looking at it and look for opportunities. 6. Re-wording of the Amend PDP procedures to make them more understandable (I did not know what "ICANN should assist the Board" meant). You can take it from here. If you feel that section I added back need to go, so be it. Alan At 03/10/2013 11:04 AM, Brian Cute wrote:
Avri and Alan,
Paul and I offer some friendly edits to the template. Please take a look at the redlined version and further iterate the document (there is a clean version as well). The suggested edits where not intended to change substance or "direction." Rather to add to what was there and with a view toward consistency across the entire report from a structural standpoint. We have also done an edit of the 12-16, 35 and 36 template that I will send shortly. Please take as friendly amendments and edit to a final state as you see fit.
Best, Brian
Thanks Alan. Got it. On 10/4/13 11:36 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Brian, as per our discussion earlier this evening, I have redrafted the template to address my concerns. Specifically:
1. I integrated the revised section on community input that was added to the original template after you made the changes.
2. Restored the intent of the first sentence of the analysis section.
3. Put back in, but re-worded the section on ensuring negotiation in good faith and added a section of the issue of the Board responding to pressure after the fact. It is justified by the discussions of the Chairs group and by several comments.
4. I restored the recommendation on GAC involvements. In his last draft, Larry does have a place holder Rec (#10) pending the Expert report, but it is very general and avoids mentioning the GNSO and PDP. I am sure they can be melded, but don't have the stamina to try now. The text included is very carefully worded to not prescribe HOW to fix the problem, but that the end-result of getting interaction is the target. I would suggest that we leave them as is in this draft.
5. I have re-worked the Rec on getting wider involvement. It is a key issue identified in the Experet report as well as several comments. Paul is correct in the it IS aspirational. It may be that parts of it are not practical to achieve now or in the foreseeable future. But we DO need to look at the issue and not put our heads in the ground. The re-work makes it clear this is not a demand to fix the problem, but to start looking at it and look for opportunities.
6. Re-wording of the Amend PDP procedures to make them more understandable (I did not know what "ICANN should assist the Board" meant).
You can take it from here. If you feel that section I added back need to go, so be it.
Alan
At 03/10/2013 11:04 AM, Brian Cute wrote:
Avri and Alan,
Paul and I offer some friendly edits to the template. Please take a look at the redlined version and further iterate the document (there is a clean version as well). The suggested edits where not intended to change substance or "direction." Rather to add to what was there and with a view toward consistency across the entire report from a structural standpoint. We have also done an edit of the 12-16, 35 and 36 template that I will send shortly. Please take as friendly amendments and edit to a final state as you see fit.
Best, Brian
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Brian Cute