Hi James

Thanks for bringing this on.  I have gone through the draft, and accepted most of your changes.  I have also developed the text in some areas to reflect your comments.  Please take a look and see if they address your concerns.

You have rightly pointed out that some of our comments are directed more to the community in general, and I think you're right to ask for them to be taken out of this letter.  I think that, instead, we should keep hold of them for the full report, because they highlight important failings in the system, notably a wasteful lack of a joined up approach with regard to studies.  Studies are commissioned in one area of the community (eg gNSO).  If those studies highlight issues for another area eg for operational improvements, then I believe it is appropriate for the corporation to review and direct corporate resources to respond and make improvements.  At the moment, the downside of the decentralised, distributed nature of the process (which otherwise has many benefits) is that it is possible for everyone in the "supply chain" to shrug their shoulders and say it's someone else's responsibility.

Let's talk further about this - we don't want to saddle the corporation with an obligation to respond to everything that happens, but where there is significant spend (eg a budget request that requires board approval), then there should be board consideration of the results, and a workstream that flows from it within a predictable time period.

So, what I've done is move that deleted text into a separate document, so that we don't forget to make these points in the full report.

I attach both documents, and look forward to further comments on the list.

Kind regards

Emily

 

On 11 November 2011 21:40, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Version du jour for Nov 11 (Attached)

Note that I changed the statistical figures, and moved the chart below the narrative.  Some phrases were better directed at other organs (e.g., GNSO or ICANN Community) so I either changed or removed those.

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Letter to Compliance (Additional Edit)
From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu>
Date: Fri, November 11, 2011 3:36 am
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>
Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org>

Hi James

Thanks, your text changes are very helpful.  I have also looked at your other comments throughout the text.  Would you like to propose alternative language to build on your comments?  I would appreciate it if you could do so.

Kind regards


Emily


On 11 November 2011 05:15, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Team:

Per our most recent call, I've made a few slight edits to the Letter to Compliance (draft).  The changes are:

*  Corrected "Registries and Registries" to read "Registries and Registrars" in two instances.
*  Struck "regulated" and inserted "monitored."
*  Added bullet point noting the technical & operational challenges faced by ICANN Compliance.  To ensure that this is appropriately attributed, I put this squarely on my head (at minimum).

Thank you,

J.


_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois




--


  

                                                                                                                                            

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily@emilytaylor.eu

www.etlaw.co.uk

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.




--


  

                                                                                                                                            

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily@emilytaylor.eu

www.etlaw.co.uk

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.