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

[Petter Rindforth]

Thanks Mary for the document, and thanks George for your suggested amendment reg prof Swaine's memo.

I agree that it will be more "readable" that way - as a separate original of his memo. That will make easy for all to make their own conclusions, together with our separate comments.

"See you" all tomorrow!

Best,

Petter
-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
www.fenixlegal.eu


NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

13 december 2016 23:49:13 +01:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>:

> 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>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20161214/f19756d3/attachment.html>