Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notes on VI Draft Section 5.1

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

RESENDING to list for reiteration of the latest POLL  to be or not to be
included  and if so HOW opinion from me...  Noe in HUGE text :-)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 16 July 2010 18:06, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just finished my first read through (quick scan) and for some reason  on my
> Open Office version all of page 63 and top part of page 64 are overprinted
> (double exposure look) and unreadable => is it just me :?
>
> Also *re the latest Poll not withstanding our discussions on todays call
> and other points raised  recently on the validity of and IF the data should
> be referred to at all; => *if* it is included  I would have thought
> that summary information and or charts of it were better to use (in as much
> as it showed "work/activity done), rather than the highly suspect raw data
> set of "responses"  that so many of us have criticized and well
> invalidated...*
>
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
>
> On 16 July 2010 17:46, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here are some notes on the VI Draft Section 5.1 (compliance) -- I may have
>> others later.
>>
>> While I agree that there was general agreement that ICANN needs to enforce
>> compliance with its contracts, I do not think that there was much discussion
>> or agreement on the kitchen sink approach of the compliance drafting group.
>>   Section 5.1 contains numerous specific recommendations that were not fully
>> aired (if at all) and for which no consensus exists, in my mind.  Some of
>> the recommendations also presuppose the adoption of a specific model -- for
>> instance, the idea of "Chinese Walls," which are irrelevant for either the
>> free trade model, the DAGv4 recommendation or (possibly) the CAM model.
>>
>> Many of the recommendations, while they may be effective for compliance,
>> are internal to the registry or registrar concerned.  I don't think that we
>> are suggesting that ICANN would mandate any of the following (at least I
>> hope we are not):
>>
>> -- Senior Management Involvement/Commitment to Compliance – Senior
>> Management must be accountable and responsible for violations; compliance
>> should be a corporate value
>> -- Bottom-up compliance – training of employees is critical to
>> establishing bottom-up compliance
>> -- Screening – active screening/sampling for potential problems [if this
>> is meant as a recommendation within a company; I think it is highly
>> problematic also if it's something that ICANN would undertake]
>> -- Internal reporting systems – opens a dialogue between management and
>> employees
>> -- Documented Training along pre-established Training outlines
>> -- Remedial actions – corrective action; internal disciplinary action
>>
>> If undertaken by ICANN, the following compliance recommendations/items
>> would, I suspect, meet with some opposition:
>>
>> -- Screening – active screening/sampling for potential problems
>> -- Chinese walls – effective Chinese walls designed to prevent sharing of
>> sensitive registry data with ongoing verification tools
>>
>> I would recommend removing lines 332 - 375.
>>
>> Antony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>