[atrt2] Draft Report - version 1 for review

Steve Crocker steve at shinkuro.com
Wed Oct 9 17:58:12 UTC 2013

They fall under the structural review provisions in the bylaws, and, indeed there was a substantial review.  The SIC oversees that process.  Speaking again as past chair of SSAC, I was pleased that even though our review was in the middle of the pack in terms of when it was started, I believe we were the first to complete the review and implement the recommendations.

All the information from the reviews is publicly available, of course.


On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 9 Oct 2013, at 13:42, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> Either within ATRT2 or through other community processes I can imagine attempting to provide guidance or impose structure on SSAC and/or other advisory committees.  If so, I recommend approaching that question directly.  Grabbing hold of the operating procedures may be helpful as part of such an effort, but I don't believe it's the right starting point or even the main issue.
> Just checking - does mean that they do not fall under the purview of the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) that has had such an intensive influence on the charters and structure of the other SO/AC?
> avri
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

More information about the atrt2 mailing list