[CWG-Stewardship] Transition Proposal v.3 -- Edits due on Sunday at 23:59 UTC

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

On a partial reread, I have the following comments. 
I do agree with Grace's comment that we are almost there.

On 05-Jun-15 00:07, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> Dear all, 
>
> Attached is the updated proposal. This version includes the edits
> listed below. *Your comments are requested and welcome until Sunday
> 23:59 UTC.* If you don’t have time to read the whole proposal, I’ve
> highlighted specific areas in the document that require feedback. 

>   * Footnote (p.65): DT-N to respond to Sidley about status of footnote
>

-  i do not understand footnote 51 in the context of the current
report.  It is a vestige of a time before we discussed the IFR in
detail.  I think it should be removed.

>   * Section VI edits should be reviewed by CWG (Avri perhaps?) 
>
seems fine to me.



---    Does Annex H need to change based on changes made in para 133

---   An issue we discussed but not sure we closed on.

IFR Clock reset after any SCWG.  (and understanding that we could not
come to consensus of changing the periodicity after an SIFR)

I think we need to reset the clock after any SCWG, no matter what
outcome it may select.  If something was important enough to warrant an
SCWG, its outcome needs to be reviewed 2 years later - even in case of a
decision of no change)

this would require changing: 299 top row 2nd col.

> Initially, two years, then moving to every five years
>

to

Initially and after an SCWG, two years, then moving to an interval of no
more than five years

(the second bit for consistency with other word in the doc)

It might also require insertion of something like the following after
126 & 385

# After the completion of a SCWG process, the IFR periodic clock will be
reset to its initial state of first IFR after 2 years followed by a
period of no more that five years for subsequent IFR.

thanks

avri



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus