RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I won't be able to join the call this morning, but I did get an answer
to our questions. Please see the response below from the GNSO Chair.

Tim

Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 
> I agree with both of your conclusions Tim. A PDP as the name implies is
> to develop policy; that does not mean that there will always be policy
> recommendations (e.g., Fast Flux PDP), but policy recommendations
> certainly seem to be in order. 
> 
> Regarding the second issue, the reason we split the IRTP review into
> multiple PDPs was to make it more manageable by breaking it into smaller
> chunks. If the IRTP-B PDP WG finds that it may be efficient to deal
> with some tasks assigned to other IRTP PDPs and is willing to do so, I
> personally encouage that.
> 
> Chuck 
> 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 09, 2010 4:39 am
To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for today’s IRTP Part B WG
meeting. 

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda – IRTP Part B WG Meeting, 9 February 2010


+    Roll Call 
+    Continue review Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements (see
analysis grid on wiki) 
+    Feedback on first draft of Initial Report 
+    Confirm next meeting