Thanks Martin I've added some comments in blue to your document. -----Original Message----- From: CSC-EffectivenessRT [mailto:csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle via CSC-EffectivenessRT Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:02 AM To: 'Debbie Monahan' <debbie@internetnz.net.nz>; csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: Re: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] updated document Thanks again to Debbie for doing this work. As agreed on the call yesterday, I have done my first shot (attached) at completing the form: as we expected, lots of N/A, but I thought it worthwhile flagging the work on the RAP and SLAs in the answers as these are important preparatory pieces. Being confronted by them, I was not sure how the first two metrics really differed (see footnote). For metric 7 I am willing to recognise that I have missed something. If not, we need to ask about what has been done or envisaged. And for the first bit of metric 11, I guess that there will be an input there very soon and before we report. You will see that I have tried to differentiate results between simply achieved (because it has gone as far as it needed to in the period) and fully achieved (where it has fully met the requirements. I am not sure how reasonable such a fine line actually is, but something tells me that, for successor reviews where there may have been some drama, the nuance might be helpful. Happy to go with the majority view. (And if we have a qualified success, we will also need a qualified failure!) Thanks again to Debbie for getting this started, Martin -----Original Message----- From: CSC-EffectivenessRT <csc-effectivenessrt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Debbie Monahan Sent: 09 October 2018 21:25 To: csc-effectivenessrt@icann.org Subject: [CSC-EffectivenessRT] updated document Hi all Please find enclosed the document with the two items I said I hadn’t included first time. Cheers Debbie