+ 1 to Avri,
I think this is my problem with this public comment draft (and I left
several comments about this in the doc). We do need more, but some of the
issues require more time for elaboration. I don't think we can criticise
ICANN for the fact that we haven't got more yet, when the document we are
commenting on says that the work is in progress.
So agree with the positive comment that will say that it's good start but
there is definitely an important work to be done further.
Cheers
Tanya

On 1 June 2016 at 19:24, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 31-May-16 15:58, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > From what I can read, I would not support the proposed policy.
>
> I find myself agreeing with the comment that we will eventually need
> something more.
> And I think that RFC7704 is a good model.
>
> But I think getting into that issue before we resolve wider
> accountability issues WS2 (e.g. ombudsman, or SOAC accountabity)  of the
> CCWG-Accountabity is impracticable.    I would suggest a statement that
> said good start, lets go with this for now, and determine after WS2,
> perhaps in next ATRT, whether more needs to be done. Some element of the
> issue could probably also feed into WS2 work.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>