I believe those points of analysis can be read as implicit in Workstream 4. To be clear, I was not intending to bound or steer the cope of the Workstreams through this document. Only to provide specific reference to the AoC terms and allow the team to interpret and organize. It may assist in organizing the work in conjunction with review and discussion of the Issues list. On 3/27/13 7:57 PM, "Larry Strickling" <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov> wrote:
Maybe it is implicit in workstream 4 but I think we need to look at the process(es) used by ICANN to review and implement the three sets of recommendations separate and apart from the specifics of the recommendations themselves and their implementation. For example, how did ICANN decide how to take up and consider each set--did it use the same process each time and does the community feel that ICANN acted with accountability and transparency in its deliberations? I emphasize that this is a different issue and should not be confused with its substantive response to each specific recommendation of the three teams.
-----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:49 PM To: ATRT2 Subject: [atrt2] Work Stream Organizer document
Alice,
Attached is an additional document for our call. Please post it when we get to the Issues list item on the agenda for discussion. Thank you.
Best, Brian