Hi all, I think that Avri´s version changes the focus too much away from the purpose of Jørgen's text, a purpose that it is my understanding that there were support to at the conference call. If we only look at GAC's status as defined in ICANN's bylaws the scope is much narrower and we will not review if there are any needs to change the bylaws or other processes but only if ICANN is complying to the existing bylaws in this matter. So I find we should keep Jørgen's wording. Best, Lise -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Avri Doria Sendt: 20. juni 2013 20:21 Cc: ATRT2 Emne: Re: [atrt2] PDP Effectiveness Study Hi, I would be more comfortable with a more ICANN centric question, like: - Whether the views of the GAC have been handled appropriately given their status as defined in the ICANN bylaws. avri On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
Dear colleagues
Proposal for a new bullit between 86 and 87 (a 86A):
- whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy.
Best wishes Jørgen _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2