[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Updated 2.15.3 - for Tuesday 12 Oct 10 mtg. Re: [] Revision 2.15 -
Hi, In addition to the changes discussed below, I also added some more text on the FAQ (then again you probably all knew I would if no one else did - i do have a bad habit of trying to fill in a void). Please check those answers to see if they make sense. I have not received any of the updated language I was expecting from others. I have included a copy with edits as well as a clean one. a. On 9 Oct 2010, at 12:16, Avri Doria wrote: > > 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> > > Attachment:
Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.15-3-clean.doc Attachment:
Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.15-3.doc
|