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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

During the meeting we decided to delete the text in the footnotes and  
refer to the full text  (a xref in the html version) that is and will  
continue to be included in the appendices of A.  The decision was  
based on readability, since a footnote that was over a page long was  
just too problematic.
a.

On 6 aug 2007, at 22.21, Robin Gross wrote:

> 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.