[DT-F] Fwd: Revised section III.A.iii.a

[David Conrad]

Hi,

See a few wordsmithing/consistency edits (on top of Chuck's which I agreed
with).  None are particularly substantive (IMHO).  I did suggest a way to
avoid the term 'major' in 2.a.v that would preclude the need for 2.a.vii,
but feel free to reject that edit.

Regards,
-drc

-----Original Message-----
From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 2:53 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, CWG DT-F <cwg-dtf at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [DT-F] Fwd: Revised section III.A.iii.a

>My apologies for taking so long to respond but it has been an incredibly
>busy day.  My suggested edits and some comments are highlighted in the
>attached file.  I know time is short so please feel free to accept,
>reject or modify any edits or suggestions I made.  I don't think any of
>them are showstoppers.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On
>Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:11 PM
>To: CWG DT-F
>Subject: [DT-F] Fwd: Revised section III.A.iii.a
>
>Comments PLEASE. This is a substantive revision from the previous version
>and we are under strong pressure to finalize the text for the CWG
>Proposal publication.
>
>Alan
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 02:23:53 -0400
>>To: CWG DT-F <cwg-dtf at icann.org>
>>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Subject: Revised section III.A.iii.a
>>
>>Attached is a revision of the DTF section (III.A.iii.a) of the CWG
>>proposal.
>>
>>In the previous version, that section and Annex N were at times
>>inconsistent or confusing. I have merged the two and Annex N is no
>>longer required. This has made for a longer section in the body of the
>>report, but given the timing and need for precision, there does not
>>seem to be a viable alternative.
>>
>>I believe that this incorporates all of the changes we have discussed
>>and addresses most of the issues raised in the public comment. In some
>>cases, as I was drafting this document, I altered how I responded to
>>the specific comments from what I and Chuck discussed in our earlier
>>e-mails, but I think the result still follows the intent.
>>
>>Alan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DT-F_June-v02 with Gomes input-drc.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 28831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150603/aea3dbb9/DT-F_June-v02withGomesinput-drc-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150603/aea3dbb9/smime-0001.p7s>