[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Draft Initial Report

[Phil Corwin]

George---

Good catch on the Swaine footnotes. I agree that we need to preserve them as in the original document.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 5:49 PM
To: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Draft Initial Report

Hi folks,

I quickly skimmed the document via Google Docs (I don't use MS Word
--- PDF would have been nicer), but noticed that there were various typos that could be fixed (all identified by spell check, so they should be evident to readers of the draft).

The big issue I spotted is related to the inclusion of the Swaine memo within the document. It seems to have been copied/pasted verbatim, and all the footnotes got renumbered (and perhaps the pagination got changed too). However, this creates a major problem, because within the footnotes (and perhaps the document text too), there were various references to prior footnotes via "supra Note XXX"), and all those are now wrong!

I don't think it would be appropriate to change all the "Supra Footnote XXX" references to match the new numbering in the current draft, as that would constitute a modification of Swaine's memo (which he might object to, especially if we introduce errors when doing so).

I think the best way to handle it is to separate out the Swaine memo into a separate document/appendix, where it could simply be an identical DOC or PDF of whatever Swaine originally supplied to ICANN (I think he supplied a PDF), with no changes whatsoever. Thus, its footnotes and pagination would all be internally consistent, and the document would not be changed by us at all. [Alternatively, one could create a separate "section" within MS Word, where the footnotes and page numbering would start from "1" again, but I think it's just easier to just have a separate PDF (and then perhaps merge the 2 PDFs, via various PDF tools, perhaps adding a separator page or something to introduce it).]

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find attached an initial draft of the full Initial Report from 
> our Working Group. As noted previously, we hope that circulating this 
> document now will allow Working Group members time to review the full 
> draft report over the holidays, with a view to publication for public comment in January.
>
>
>
> It was agreed last week that we will go ahead with a short call this 
> Thursday, to identify any remaining issues that Working Group members 
> believe need to be discussed or otherwise added to the draft document. 
> As such, and given that this is a rather lengthy document, we request 
> that if you have suggestions and edits to the draft, instead of 
> redlining it as has been our practice, please send your comments to 
> this list so that staff can incorporate them in due course.
>
>
>
> Please note also that the attached document contains a few additions, 
> shown as redlines, to what was Section 4 (Deliberations) and Section 6
> (Recommendations) – these are the new language suggested by George for 
> the Recommendations section following the last Working Group call, and 
> additional edits to the Deliberations section sent by Phil but which 
> we did not manage to capture in time for the last call.
>
>
>
> You will note from the document that these two sections have also been 
> renumbered and moved around – this is due to our now using a new 
> template for these PDP Working Group reports. Thus, the former Section 
> 6
> (Recommendations) is now Section 2, and appears before the 
> Deliberations section (formerly Section 4, now Section 3) – which is 
> also the order that George had suggested may make more sense.
>
>
>
> We hope in particular that Working Group members who have not been 
> able to participate actively on the calls or on the mailing list will 
> provide comments and input at this stage, before we finalize the 
> Initial Report for public comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16