[CWG-Stewardship] CWG-Stewardship Publishes Discussion Document for ICANN 52

[Greg Shatan]

A couple of quick comments in response.

In near-final drafts, there was an MS Word "keep code" associated with the
orphaned header you noted, which prevented it from being orphaned.
Somewhere in the process of handing-off and finishing-off among various
people that was lost.  As a former professional proofreader (summer job,
and prior to law school), that kind of stuff bothers me, too. Considering
the press toward finishing and the other live tasks going on
simultaneously, these things happen. Don't think that those working on it
were unaware, just overburdened.

Also, it's fairly common, both in legal and general writing, to use the
term US law to refer to state law as a generality (as opposed to Federal
law, which is the law of the United States as an entity).  I approved this
usage, and I'm comfortable with it in the document.  Nonetheless, I'm sure
we'll keep an eye on any incorrect application of the concept.

Finally, I am confident that our efforts are very much consistent with
Larry Strickling's words.  Our challenges lie more in bringing things to
closure in some reasonable fashion, while never cutting corners.

Greg

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:01 PM, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:

> Dear Grace *et al:*
>
> I do not know if it is too late to change, but whenever a "discussion
> document" or any document is prepared for general distribution, (especially
> for readers not familiar with its content) never, never, separate a heading
> from the content immediately following. Look at the bottom of page 8, top
> of page 9. Word processing software can prevent this from happening (in
> Word it is called widow and orphan control
> <http://word.tips.net/T001149_Controlling_Widows_and_Orphans.html> ). At
> bottom of page 8, you have an "orphan" -- "Summary of the External Trust
> Model." The content for this heading is on page 9 with no reference as to
> what it is referring. Typesetters understood, long before the age of
> computers, to avoid "widows and orphans" so readers would not be confused
> and were aided in their comprehension.
>
> In addition, I am not sure what "end result" is hoped for in Singapore for
> the "Discussion Document"-- it may be a way to give ICANN52 attendees a
> very general overview, it is NOT good for discussion leading to decisions.
> What is the purpose of the discussion? To inform attendees of ICANN 52 of
> the status and enable them to ask relevant questions? Or to start lobbying
> attendees to make up their mind in favor of a particular option, with the
> hope to harden positions of ICANN stakeholders groups? From just what I
> have read on this and other mail lists, I fear it is the latter. In fact, I
> have found in answering some individual emails from CWG-Stewardship
> participants, they have no understanding at all of the External Trust
> Model, may not have been at the Jan 30th meeting where it was discussed:
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52232278 , or
> have "already made up their mind."
>
> As you know, I will not be in Singapore. Greg Shatan has the best
> understanding of the External Trust Model of anyone who will be in
> Singapore. To give but one example of how the "Discussion Document for
> ICANN 52" is NOT a "Decision Document" is the reference to U.S. law at the
> top of page 9. I know, and Greg knows, this is NOT a reference to U.S.
> Federal Law, but to the Common Law for Trusts followed by many nations
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> as well as 49 of the 50 States
> of the USA, as it may have been modified in each jurisdiction. In the US, Trusts
> are formed under state law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law>, NOT
> federal law. This is because, unlike most nations, the US federal
> government (itself divided into 3 branches) has only the limited powers
> granted it by the US Constitution. Greg knows all this, but most, if not
> all readers in Singapore of the "Discussion Draft" do not know this.
> Perhaps someone should inform the ICANN52 attendees of this since,
> apparently, there are now formal Discussion and Question&Answer sessions
> planned for ICANN 52. Ignorance and dysfunction have a way of multiplying,
> even when one has "good intentions."
>
> I wish all those attending ICANN 52 the best, including safe travels.
> Please remember, when you are in Singapore, the words of Larry Strickling
> just a few days ago: "... the community should proceed as if it has only
> one chance to get this right... In response to the December 1 draft, other
> suggestions have emerged.  Are all the options and proposals being
> adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent?..."
>
> Best regards,
> John Poole
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150207/aaa81df8/attachment.html>