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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

I believe the agreement reached in today's meeting satisfies your
criteria.  As I recall, we decided in each case (NCUC & Avri) to refer
to the full minority statements as additional annexes in Part A instead
of as footnotes.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:22 PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> Milton Mueller
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] agenda for new gtld mtg - monday 
> aug 6 - proposed
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >
> 
>