[atrt2] Prioritization

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Dec 19 17:43:09 UTC 2013


Public comment is always possible.  But no, I was not thinking that it 
should explicitly have its own comment and review schedule.  A formal 
public comment period without a specific review obligation and response 
is hardly worth asking for, and I don't suggest we subject this schedule 
to that. The slings and arrows of blogs and such will be sufficient in 
this case, I believe.


On 19-Dec-13 12:07, Brian Cute wrote:
> David,
> I did not intend public comment in that statement.  If ATRT2 members
> have a different view, please indicate.  Thank you.
> Regards,
> Brian
> From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <mailto:drc at virtualized.org>>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:48:32 -0800
> To: Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org <mailto:bcute at pir.org>>
> Cc: "atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org> (atrt2 at icann.org
> <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>)" <atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization
> Brian,
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org
> <mailto:bcute at pir.org>> wrote:
>> "ATRT2 believes that these Recommendations are important and, to the
>> extent accepted by the Board, should be treated as a strategic
>> priority.  To that end, ICANN should create an implementation plan and
>> publish it to the Community."
> Should publication also come with an avenue for input from the Community
> regarding those implementation plans?
>> I think for all these reasons, the statement about may be useful to
>> include in the Report.
> Agree.
> Regards,
> -drc
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

More information about the atrt2 mailing list