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

[Gomes, Chuck]

More good edits in my opinion.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:57 PM
To: CWG DT-F
Subject: Re: [DT-F] Fwd: Revised section III.A.iii.a
Importance: High

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