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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Thanks,
Robin



Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> 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.
>
> a.
>
> 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.