[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Third Draft Proposal with annexes - First full version for CCWG comments (1 of many emails due to size)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

Thanks for putting this up, first is to commend drafters for giving the
impression that the 3rd FULL version proposal is within 60pages window. ;-)

Secondly, I observed that a number of comments that has been raised in the
past few days has not be reflected (including the board's submission).
Isn't it better to have those changes reflect so the whole document can be
looked at in its real 3rd version state.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Nov 2015 22:19, "Bernard Turcotte" <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> All,
>
> As per the schedule please find attached in separate files the third draft
> of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal and all its core annexes.
>
> We have opted to present it as separate files for ease of consideration.
>
> The core proposal file is aptly named CWG-3rdMainProposalV3.0 and all the
> Annex file names conveniently start with the word Annex and the number
> matches the recommendation
> ​.
>
> You will quickly realize that the main proposal is very closely based on
> the Update that was published on the 15th of November. Its slightly bigger
> at about 50 pages
> ​​
> vs 30 for the update
> ​​
> document. Some of the texts have been updated or replaced given the work
> that was carried out in developing the annexes however the core content has
> not changed - simply how we present it. A good part of the size increase is
> due to the comparative chart of the Mission and Core values which takes up
> 7 pages, but we felt it was critical content which needed to be in the main
> proposal. Graphics have been updated and new ones added which also accounts
> for some of the increase. Each Recommendation also now has a Detailed
> Recommendations section which tries to clearly identify what will need to
> be done for the specific Recommendation to be implemented. These changes by
> themselves probably account for the majority increase in volume.
>
> Each Annex has 4 sections
> ​ completed​
> , Summary, Detailed Recommendations, Explanation, Changes from the 2nd
> Draft. The summary is intended to be a high level functional summary of the
> recommendation and can sometimes be the same as the text in the main
> proposal. Detailed Recommendations should be the same as in the main
> proposal. The 3rd section is where the detailed content is. As an example
> we essentially copied the IRP section from the second draft into the detail
> section of the annex 7 on IRP. The 4th section Changes is a high level
> summary of changes from the second draft.There are additional sections but
> these are still under development.
>
> Given the size of the project and the schedule we hope you will understand
> that staff has only been able to do a first pass at editing these. As such
> final formatting has not been done and there will certainly be some
> spelling, grammar and other types of nits.
>
> Before being finalized the documents will be scrubbed by editors, writers
> and formatters.
>
> As you can see we have all the appropriate resources that will do their
> usual great editing job and as such we do not require everyone to volunteer
> to be our copy editors. It is also important to understand that line edits
> are a big problem for staff given not everyone works to the same standards
> and multiple line edited versions of the same document, as we learned in
> the comment exercise on the Update document, can be divergent and require
> an incredible amount of work to reconcile into a single version - which for
> the volume of work we are considering in this phase would make it
> impossible.So please, everyone, and especially our legally minded
> collaborators, no line edits.
>
> We are however looking forward to comments about content, are the
> recommendations clear and correctly presented, is there enough information
> in the main document, if not what is missing, is there too much
> information, what is that, Is the material organized and structured in an
> effective format. This is what we need at this point.
>
> Therefore we look forward to your comments, as per the above caveats, on
> this draft by 23:59UTC  Monday November 23rd.
>
> B
> ​ernard Turcotte
> ICANN Staff Support.​
>
> for the co-chairs and staff.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151121/3a437186/attachment.html>