[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 12 - work stream 2 - 1st reading conclusions
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Thu Jan 7 03:31:47 UTC 2016
A specific mention to transparency on Board deliberations has been added in the amended document (please see page 7 of the document).
If you feel this does not properly address the issue you’ve raised, please let us know so we can better address your concern.
> El 06/01/2016, a las 4:26 p.m., Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> escribió:
> Several comments in the public comment period called for a specific WS2 transparency issue of “transparency over board deliberations”. NCSG was among those commenters. How do we include the views of those who’s comments weren’t taken into account in the document / discussion for 1st reading on Rec. 12 in yesterday’s call? The GNSO’s comments don’t come in until next week, so how will they be incorporated into Rec. 12 if we’ve already done the 2 readings before we’ve even seen the GNSO view on Rec. 12? It looks like only the board’s concerns were reflected in the document / discussion for the 1st reading of Rec #12. How do we include other stakeholder concerns in these discussions?
>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>> <Formatted-Annex 12-PROOFED-1stREAD.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community