Thank
you, Jeff, for your message.
Am I right in assuming that this message below, and the helpful google doc, essentially replace your message on the same topic from last week? In other words, we only
need to go to these proposed changes on today’s call, is that right?
Thank you and all the best
Lars
From:
SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Monday, 1 July 2024 at 23:36
To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Predictability Changes
All,
I have had a conversation with some people on the Predictability model who may have had different interpretations of the language as I had. In order to clear things up, I am providing my slight redline to Section
4.1 of this Section, which I think would clear things up so that we are all on the same page.
I have placed that language in this Google Doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUCaJcLK1r54r5fW5pUiYwqeVXeFK12Qw1sO6xe0BQA/edit?usp=sharing
Essentially my proposal:
-
changes the language to make it clear that the 4 options in this section are not "sequential", but are really four (4) different paths for a change to be made to the program.
-
Re-orders the paths so that they reflect the next page order of paths (reading left to right).
-
Makes Path 3 clear that the GNSO Council can refer any issue it wants to the SPIRT without having to go through ICANN Org. It also clarifies the language that it is the Council who refers things to the SPIRT and not the SPIRT raising issues on its own (which
was in the adopted policy recommendations).
-
Recommends 2 slight changes to the boxes in the flow chart to reflect the changes in Path 3.
I believe the wording changes are minor, but the concepts are major in the sense that they would be in line with the SubPro Final Report and , if my understanding is correct, would be what was intended.
I hope you find this helpful.
Sincerely,
Jeff
|
docs.google.com |
