[Gnso-epdp-team] Section 4 of Temp Spec.
kurt at kjpritz.com
Sun Sep 2 07:00:01 UTC 2018
Thank you for your thoughts on this. Ordinarily, I would agree with each one of your points as they reflect sound operating practices.
Under certain circumstances, I think we might depart from them.
1) The registrars in their Triage comments for §§ 4.4.1, 4.4.3-4.4.7, 4.4.11-4.4.13, often recommended that they be written in a substantially different way. In these cases, a re-write (rather than an edit) might be more efficacious. I do not know what degree of collaboration took place between ICANN and the contracted parties in the writing of the temporary specification. But absent some signal from the contracted parties that they had a substantial hand in it, I see no reason that deference should be paid to the original writing. If the replacement language is clear and a sound basis for a consensus policy, I hope we can support it.
2) Also, 48 hours before the Thursday meeting also happens to be before the Tuesday meeting. If an edited or replacement text is available prior to the Tuesday meeting, I don’t know why the authors cannot present it and take preliminary questions. That opportunity might help the readers in their consideration of the text prior to the Thursday call. So again, I agree with the spirit of your comments (and Ayden’s support of it), In this case, I think we’d be better off taking some time to review the material if it is available.
3) Finally, I take note of your comment regarding adjectives. My view is aligned with yours in that the use of adjectives (and particularly adverbs) often lack certainty, require explanation and should be avoided where possible.
Let me know what you think of this. I understand it is contrary to your views in some ways. We agree in principle but, on occasion, we might consider departingt from those principles where it provides a better path.
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Kurt
> Dear All
> Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C
> Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents
> In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats
> Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others.
> Some sort of coordination thus nay be required.
> These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before .
> Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time.
> Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs
> This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams
> Best regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team