[AT-Review] ATRT 2-day f2f meeting in Brussels - Proposed Agenda ..

Manal Ismail 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 ..

Thanks Manal
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
> --Manal
> <ATRT Proposed Agenda - 15Jun10.doc>_______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review

More information about the AT-Review mailing list