ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday aug 6 - proposed

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday aug 6 - proposed
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:21:46 -0700

To help with the readability of the report, we would be okay with i) shortening our comment on #20 by deleting the beginning of the text that just recites the text of Rec. #20, and ii) moving the NCUC statement to the back of Part A. But we believe that it is important for it to not be moved to Part B of the report, since we do not agree with recommendations and need to explain why in Part A.


Avri Doria wrote:


i would personally be comfortable with seeing a specific cross reference to the location in B for my comments. i can, however, understand why someone might want to have their comments inline, or at least a local footnote. perhaps if they were done as end notes - in the same document but in the back.


On 6 aug 2007, at 15.13, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

It seems preferable to me that
the full text of these statrements be in Part B with footnotes in Part A that state the existence of concerns or minority report on a particular point and specific page references to their location in Part B. Another alternative, which I do not prefer ( because I do not believe it would be equally effective), is to include a very clear explanation as to why these statements are in Part A - and not Part B - and textual "markers" on the pages consisting of or containing primarily minority statements or other concerns.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>