Hello,

Am sorry for coming late on this, and like to thank all those who contributed to this work and I particularly think these said of recommendations can serve as useful guidelines for other organisations outside ICANN.

That said, a section of the 3rd recommendation caught my attention and I quote below, with emphasis on relevant section:

"The panel could review concerns or issues raised by the community, ombudsman, staff or board that at least two panel members determine require further effort. This panel would have no powers beyond those of its members and their ability to cooperate.

While this panel should work transparently, it will, at its discretion, be able to treat issues that require it, as confidential."

1. It is not clear what the output of such panel will be; I think we could note that such output of the group will serve as recommendation to the Board

2. I think making the "keeping confidential" optional decision of just 4 members of a group raises a little concern. Hence I think it may be good to not make confidentiality optional (where confidentiality is due or clearly stated by the complainant)

The 2 points are not redline for me, and am fine should this be late already. However, if there is still opportunity to incorporate this, do kindly consider them.

Regards

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:30 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:

Hi,

During today's WS2 plenary meeting, the report passed its first reading
with a few comments.

The changes can be found in:

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vH5su7SDGE0i_rTstbYJ7tIaOFuRnV4dfqpwMTPoYa8/edit?usp=sharing>

2 pdf files are attached: one marked up and one clean.

_Change made_

- page 3  Roles and Responsibilities point 7.

Added two explicit instances of ",as appropriate"

- page 5  Recommendation 2

It was commented that point ii, was not a recommendation but an
explanation.  It was recommended that the explanation be removed.
Instead, the recommendation has been be subordinate to one of the
recommendation and no longer stands alone as a recommendation.

- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 1

Sentence reworked to replace informal with ad-hoc.  Not sure this is as
correct as informal. But not sure that it makes a difference.

- page 6 Recommendation 3 change 2

We were asked to add example conditions of when discussions could be
confidential instead of transparent. Since the Transparency subgroup
developed answers for the SOAC accountability subgroup to the same
issue, the SOAC text was copied to this report.  A footnote was added to
say that the various example listings should remain consistent once the
entire WS2 book was built.

- page 6 Recommendation 4a.

The consensus was that it should remain service level guideline instead
of service level agreements.

_Consensus Call  for 2nd plenary reading submission
_

Until 30 September 2359 UTC
__

If anyone has any objections or strong recommendations for ways to
change the edits being made in response__to the 1st reading comments
please contribute specific changes on the list.  If we change the file
in a substantive way during this last call based on comments, I will
restart the last call for another 48 hours after the change is
published.  Minor fixes will just be made without restarting the clock.

Note: at this point substantive changes to the report or its content are
discouraged as they would require another 1st plenary reading and would
probably mean that we would not finish in time.
__

thanks

avri

_______________________________________________
Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!