Hi, 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. avri 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@virtualized.org <mailto:drc@virtualized.org>> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:48:32 -0800 To: Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org <mailto:bcute@pir.org>> Cc: "atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> (atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>)" <atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization
Brian,
On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org <mailto:bcute@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2