<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 2.0cm 3.0cm 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=DA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I can see that from the transcript - but the section seems very definitive in the prioritizing without any further explanation of the status of “non-prioritized” recommendations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Now I have raised my concern – good night from DK.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Lise<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Fra:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] <br><b>Sendt:</b> 15. oktober 2013 22:07<br><b>Til:</b> Lise Fuhr; 'Brian Cute'; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; 'Charla Shambley'; 'Alice Jansen'<br><b>Cc:</b> atrt2@icann.org<br><b>Emne:</b> Re: [atrt2] Master with edits<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Lisa, I consider prioritizing a very wrong decision. I would have prefered that we had not said this, but I can live with the words in this draft report, because it only says we will CONSIDER doing it. This was a suggestion made by Mr Zhang.<br><br>At 15/10/2013 03:34 PM, Lise Fuhr wrote:<br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all,<br> <br>I am not at all happy about the last section of our executive summary:<br> <br>In the Final Report, ATRT2 will consider “prioritizing” certain Recommendations based on their respective importance. ATRT2 considers Recommendations relating to the Board, GAC, Metrics and Multilingualism to be priority Recommendations. ATRT2 welcomes feedback on prioritization of proposed Recommendations from the Community.<br> <br>What will this prioritizing mean? That the board should implement these recommendations first. Or the board can choose not to implement the other recommendations because they are not prioritized? I thought that giving a time-frame for implementing would give the idea of the urgency of the different recommendations.<br> <br>I know it was briefly discussed at the conference call October 1 but I can’t see final decision on the issue. I find that the implications of prioritizing is not clear in our report and would recommend that we write more explicit what we mean by prioritizing and that we expect that all the recommendations is to be implemented.<br> <br>Best,<br>Lise<br> <br> <br><b>Fra:</b> <a href="mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org">atrt2-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org"> mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>På vegne af </b>Brian Cute<br><b>Sendt:</b> 15. oktober 2013 21:08<br><b>Til:</b> Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Alice Jansen<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a> (<a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>)<br><b>Emne:</b> [atrt2] Master with edits<br> <br>Larisa,<br> <br>Here is the updated version. Have not changed all the numbering. Call me if you questions.<br> <br>Brian<br>_______________________________________________<br>atrt2 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>