[atrt2] Work Stream Organizer document

Carlos Raúl Gutierrez carlosraulg at gmail.com
Thu Mar 28 00:02:48 UTC 2013

I need a linguistic clarification here:
Are the recommendations of all three previous reviews directed to ICANN? Or to ICANNs Board? Or depending on what the recommendation is about to either one?

Thank you

Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
crg at isoc-cr.org
Skype carlos.raulg
+506 7070 7176

El 27/03/2013, a las 17:57, Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov> escribió:

> Maybe it is implicit in workstream 4 but I think we need to look at the process(es) used by ICANN to review and implement the three sets of recommendations separate and apart from the specifics of the recommendations themselves and their implementation.  For example, how did ICANN decide how to take up and consider each set--did it use the same process each time and does the community feel that ICANN acted with accountability and transparency in its deliberations?  I emphasize that this is a different issue and should not be confused with its substantive response to each specific recommendation of the three teams.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:49 PM
> To: ATRT2
> Subject: [atrt2] Work Stream Organizer document
> Alice,
> Attached is an additional document for our call.  Please post it when we get to the Issues list item on the agenda for discussion.  Thank you.
> Best,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130327/c084dc82/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list