All good to change / update as suggested<div><br></div><div>J <span></span><br><br>On Sunday, 2 August 2015, Grace Abuhamad <<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org">grace.abuhamad@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Robin,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There was another dissenting opinion in the Community Powers section that was in a footnote. I was simply following a formatting consistency. I will confirm with the Chairs, but I don't think it'll be an issue to move the dissenting opinions in Powers
and Mechanism to the main body of the text. Those are the only sections with dissenting opinions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please hold for a confirmation from the Chairs and I will update the draft. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you, </div>
<div>Grace</div>
<div><br>
Sent from my mobile device</div>
<div><br>
On Aug 1, 2015, at 21:12, Robin Gross <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robin@ipjustice.org');" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Why did the dissenting views on 5A get moved to a footnote? They were in the body of the text of the report in the versions of this document before. Had they been in a footnote before I would have objected. I don't believe it is appropriate to make
such a significant change prejudicing minority views after the document is supposedly locked. We were told the document was locked, and yet this change was made with no opportunity to object. Therefore I object now and request the text get moved back to
the body of the report as it was in all the previous drafts we reviewed.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you,</div>
<div>Robin<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 1, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>Dear all, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here is the updated community mechanism document for the freeze. This includes the dissenting opinions text that Robin and Greg clarified. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div>Grace</div>
</div>
<span><Community Mechanism_0108.docx></span><span><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.docx></span><span><Community Mechanism_0108_redline.pdf></span><span><Community Mechanism_0108.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Jordan Carter<br>Chief Executive, InternetNZ<p>+64-21-442-649 | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<br></p></p>