[AT-Review] ATRT 2-day f2f meeting in Brussels - Proposed Agenda ..
manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Jun 16 04:55:55 UTC 2010
Thanks Peter for your fast response ..
BTW, the agenda was prepared by Brian, Alice and myself ..
Thanks also for the question .. I don't think this was discussed before but my immediate response would be that all members have to agree on the evaluation criteria and the % of the total score that is being allocated to each criterion .. as for the presentations I think this has to do more with the scoring itself so relevant questions would be:
- is it only the Committee who will be scoring ?
- if not, is it optional for the rest of the members, does everyone have to participate in the scoring or is there a min. no. that has to be agreed upon ?
From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush at icann.org]
Sent: Wed 16/06/2010 05:25 AM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] ATRT 2-day f2f meeting in Brussels - Proposed Agenda ..
Does the entire team need to hear presentations?
That seems to me the kind of thing the Committee could and should do.
On Jun 16, 2010, at 6:41 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:
> Dear colleagues ..
> Please find attached a proposed agenda for our 2-day f2f meeting in Brussels ..
> Apologies for the late circulating ..
> I hope you won't mind, for the sake of time, if we ask Alice to post this 'Proposed Agenda' on the website meanwhile as we receive your comments ..
> Comments will then be reflected in the agenda and agenda will be either renamed as 'Final Agenda' or simply have the word 'Proposed' deleted ..
> I hope this sounds reasonable ..
> Looking forward to our meeting in Brussels ..
> Kind Regards
> <ATRT Proposed Agenda - 15Jun10.doc>_______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
More information about the AT-Review