<p dir="ltr">Noted Jorge...</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 7 Oct 2015 3:52 pm, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all,<br>
<br>
I apologize for missing this important call.<br>
<br>
However, following-up with my request in LA, and apart from conversations within the GAC, I would want to kindly ask the team to work on the needed new rationale for ST18, as in LA it was aknowledged that the prior one did not "hold water".<br>
<br>
Thanks and looking forward to further discussions,<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<br>
<br>
> Am 07.10.2015 um 01:31 schrieb Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
> (Trying again since attachments failed on first attempt)<br>
><br>
> Stress Test team,<br>
><br>
> It’s time for us to analyze public comments regarding Stress Tests in the CCWG 2nd draft proposal. First attachment is a PDF version of the public comments on Stress Tests, extracted from the PC Tool excel sheet compiled by ICANN staff.<br>
><br>
> Second attachment is a first draft of our analysis document, for discussion on our ST team call tomorrow (call details below).<br>
><br>
> —Steve and Cheryl<br>
> <PC2 tool - Stress Test tab.pdf><br>
> <Stress Tests - analysis of PC2.docx><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4</a><br>
</blockquote></div>