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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, yes, this is fine with me.

Robin


Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
> > > >        
> >    
>