Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Revison 2.15

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Tijani.

Thank you for your detailed edit of the draft.

I have processed you edits and they will show up in the version I release at 
the end of the weekend - all changes will be marked by change indicators.

I accepted many, if not most, of the wording recommendations, though in some 
cases have changed the wording a little

I have decided to not, at this time, make the following changes.

- In one case I put our wording in as a option to be decided by the group, 
although of course all edits get vetted by the group.

The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support [that should, to] be 
made available for potential applicants, which falls into the following five 
categories:

While in most case I have accepted you change of 'recommendations" to 
'identified type of aid to be provided', I think it important to remember that 
this group can only make recommendations.  So In this introductory paragraph, I 
think we should acknowledge that all we can do as a WG is make recommendation 
to the Chartering Organizations.

- I have not made sections 2.2 to 2.6 subordinate to section 2.1.  This may 
come down to a matter of taste.  My decision rests on the following reasons:

   1. 2.1 is introductory and can therefore stand alone.
   2. It is a tradeoff in order to avoid growing chains of numbers.  I find 
that readers start to get confused when the number get too long.  So whenever 
possible I will opt for stand alone sections as opposed to subordinate 
sections.  I try to avoid, except in technical documents, getting to a fourth 
level of header.
   3. A desire to keep the numbering mostly the same as we have been working 
with to not confuse things unless there is a prevailing reason to change the 
structure of the document.

I did however accept your suggestion to create third level headings in section 
2.6 Other Types of Aid.

- I have retained moving section 2.2.1 (1.1.1    Support for build-out in 
underserved languages and IDNs for new gTLDs) since it is a price reduction 
recommendation and not a technical recommendation.  Of course I now wonder 
wither the shared risk recommendation itself is in the correct section.  Is it 
really a technical help suggestion. Ot should it be moved to the logistical 
section or to other types of aid?

I have cut some of your comments (the stuff in green) into the latest draft as 
comments, so that your issues are not lost and can be discussed by the group at 
large.

Thanks again for your continued efforts to improve the document.

a.


On 9 Oct 2010, at 08:52, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>  
> Attached is the last version you sent with my comments/corrections.
>  
> I put:
> ·         in red things to be removed
> ·         In blue things to be added.
> ·         In green my comments
>  
> As a general remark, the level of consensus should be highlighted, and put 
> either at the very beginning of the paragraph or at its end for uniformity
>  
> If you don’t understand the raison of the proposed correction, or if you 
> don’t agree on something, please tell me. We can discuss it by e-mail 
> exchange.
>  
> I worked from ”The Recommendations” till the first frequently asked question 
> only.
>  
> Hope it will help  
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
> Phone : + 216 70 825 231
> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
> Envoyé : vendredi 8 octobre 2010 17:44
> À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Revison 2.15
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I think I have captured the discussion form today's meeting.
>  
> I also:
>  
> - reviewed in terms of sub-numbering
>  
> - moved the section on underserved language to being a subordinate part of 
> the pricing proposals.
>  
> - converted most bullet to letter-numbered lists
>  
> - added the footnote on shared risk pools, though i would not take bets on it 
> being an adequate definition.
>  
> a.
>  
> <Draft Final Report JAS WG v2 15.2_Tijani.doc>