[AT-Review] Work items

Brian Cute briancute at afilias.info
Fri May 14 16:08:12 UTC 2010



As we drive this document toward final form, can you assist us with the
mechanics of getting the questions posted for public comment?  Who on staff
should we interact with?   Thanks.




From: Willie Currie [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 12:05 PM
To: briancute at afilias.info
Cc: at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Work items


Brian & Olivier

I've combined your suggestions into a new version together with Fabio's
addition to question 4.


Brian Cute wrote: 



I have attached some suggested edits that are more “neutral.”  I am
interested in feedback on this point.





From: Willie Currie [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:20 AM
Cc: at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Work items


Thanks, Olivier. What do people think? Is it better to push people to
address whether there is a problem or ask a more neutral question?

 I don't see your general question on global internet users - could you
resend it?


olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com wrote: 

Willie, Brian, all,


I rephrased the first two questions. I don't feel at ease beginning the
consultation with " Do you think there is a problem...".  I think it might
be better to begin with a more neutral question."What is your general
assessment of...".


I added a general question on ICANN's commitment to the interests of global
Internet users, 







De : at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] De la
part de Willie Currie
Envoyé : vendredi 14 mai 2010 15:20
À : briancute at afilias.info
Cc : at-review at icann.org
Objet : Re: [AT-Review] Work items

Brian, all

Here is the latest version of the questions, with a reformulation of
question 4 by Fabio.


  Brian Cute wrote: 


Our most immediate work item is the draft questions for the Community that
were drafted by Cheryl, Olivier and Willie.  We have a deadline of May 15th
to submit the questions for posting.  Please review the questions and post
any proposed edits so we can meet this deadline.

Looking forward, since paragraph 9.1 of the AoC has 5 areas of review (the
Board, the GAC, public input, public support of decisions and policy
development process), I suggest that we establish “sub-committees” headed by
two members of the RT who oversee the work of each area of review.  The two
responsible members would ensure that the review work remains focused and
aligned with the RT’s methodology and on time for deliverables in December.
The sub- committee approach would not prevent any RT member from
participating directly in the work of any of the 5 areas of review – it is
intended to ensure organization and efficiency given our the limited number
of members on the RT.

If this approach is acceptable, please think about the area that you would
like to volunteer for and indicate that in advance of our next scheduled
call.  The Doodle for our next call is almost complete.  If you haven’t
indicated your availability, please do so and we will send out the meeting
maker and telephone bridge.





AT-Review mailing list
AT-Review at icann.org




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100514/f63db913/attachment.html 

More information about the AT-Review mailing list