[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Updated draft Initial Report

Thu Jan 12 16:52:01 UTC 2017

P.S. My comments were based on the page numbering in the CLEAN PDF
version of the document that Mary had linked to in her email from last
week.

Sincerely,

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:50 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I completed my review, and my comments are below. They're mostly
> formatting and stylistic in nature. See in particular point #10 below,
> where I think everything would be a lot simpler if we simply scrap the
> attempts at incorporating the Swaine report directly into our draft
> report, and instead simply link to an entirely separate PDF.
>
> Alternatively, there are ways to join 2 separate PDFs (using Adobe
> Acrobat, etc.), which might be better than trying to do it all in MS
> Word. i.e. generate a PDF for the Swaine report, generate a PDF for
> our own report (minus the Swaine section), and then just join the
> two).
>
> 1. page 2: the page numbering in the Table of Contents for items 13
> and 14 seem to be messed up (jumps from page 65 for item 12 to page 0
> and then to page 5). It looks like all the page numbering reset after
> page 94.
>
> 2. top of page 18: for the long (nearly half-page) quote of Professor
> Swaine (multiple paragraphs) that are italicized, one might consider
> doing an indentation of the entire quote (not just the first line, but
> changing the left margin so that the entire text is shifted to the
> right), in order to further emphasize that it's a long quote. That
> would then make it a bit more clear where the quote begins and ends,
> relative to the remainder of the "normal" text in the document. See
> the quoted text on page 20 (after the bullet point, around the 3rd
> paragraph) where it's also indented.
>
> 3. page 20, paragraph 3: the quote ends with:
>
> rules"].
>
> I think it should be:
>
> rules.]"
>
> See page 94 for how the original quote looked in Swaine's report.
>
> 4. Page 26, first line: "A PDP was not, however, not initiated…" is
> obviously mixed up! It should be something like "However, a PDP was
> not initiated…"
>
> 5. page 33: the long quotes (in 3 separate places) from the IGO Small
> Group Proposal are indented (which is nice, see my point #2 above),
> but are not in italics. Probably should italicize them to be
> consistent (around the middle of the page, and also the 2nd quote
> towards the bottom, and the 3rd quote starting at the bottom and going
> on to the next page).
>
> 6. page 34: last paragraph, 6th line from the bottom, "…stripping a
> losing registrant of his right to appeal to a national court…" --
> should be gender neutral, i.e. "his" might be seen as objectionable
> (and the registrant might also be a corporation or other
> organizational structure). Consider changing to "…stripping a losing
> registrant of **the** right to appeal to a national court…" I've not
> double-checked the entire document, but other cases of non-gender
> neutral language might also need to be corrected.
>
> 7. page 38 (bottom), extending to the top of page 39: consider
> italicizing the long quote from the GAC, for consistency with styling
> of other long quotes (see my point #2 above too; this quote as
> indented).
>
> 8. page 45: as per my previous comment on the last draft (see comment
> #13 of that one), I think the name of the NPOC should be double
> checked -- on our document it's listed as "Not-for-Profit
> Organizational Concerns Constituency", but that doesn't match their
> name at:
>
> http://www.npoc.org/index.php
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg/npoc
>
> I don't know what their "official" name is, but it would seem to be
> "Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns" (based on their own website and
> what's on the GNSO website)
>
> Same for the ISPCP -- their own website says:
>
> http://www.ispcp.info/
>
> "Internet Service Providers & Connectivity Providers"
>
> and the GNSO website says:
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/csg/isp
>
> "ISPs and Connectivity Providers Constituency"
>
> One should use their official names (which I'm still unsure of!).
>
> 9. page 46: as per comment #8 above, whatever names are finally
> determined to be authoritative on page 45 should match what is used on
> page 46 (ISPCP doesn't match now between pages). I'd also suggest
> removing the "The GNSO" or "The" prefixes preceding the names in the
> bullet points on page 46 (might add "the following" at the end of the
> paragraph above it, to make it flow nicely after the "The"s are
> removed, i.e. "….were received from the following:"
>
> 10.  it looks like the footnotes got corrupted somehow, perhaps when
> copied/pasted. It says "Error! Bookmark not defined." in various
> places in bold, e.g.
>
> a] page 69: footnote 8
> b] page 70: footnote 11
> c] page 71: footnote 15: (seems the formatting got changed near the
> end of it, as the text is darker than the rest of the footnote)
> d] page 76: footnote 35: corrupted, twice!
> e] page 77: footnote 38: corrupted, twice!
> f] page 77: footnote 39: corrupted, twice!
> g] page 78: footnote 41 (continued from prior page): corrupted twice!
> h] page 78: footnote 42
> i] page 78: footnote 43
> j] page 79: footnote 46
> k] page 79: footnote 47
> l] page 82: footnote 63: corrupted, twice!
> m] page 83: footnote 65: corrupted, twice!
> n] page 84: footnote 68: corrupted, twice!
> o] page 84: footnote 69
> p] page 84: footnote 70
> q] page 90: footnote 94
> r] page 90: footnote 96
> s] page 92: footnote 103
> t] page 93: footnote 104: corrupted, twice
> u] page 93: footnote 106
>
> Given the ongoing problems with footnote, perhaps it'd be best to
> publish the Swaine report as a separate document (in its original
> form), rather than continue to try to incorporate it into our own
> draft report?? I'm sure this would make things much easier for ICANN
> staff, especially given that the footnotes might get corrupted again
> in the future (e.g. the final report), if various page numbers in the
> rest of the document change, etc.
>
> 11. As noted earlier, the page numbers are corrupted after page 94
> (i.e. it goes 94, 0, 1…).
>
> 12. I support the other comments already made to the mailing list by
> Petter, Phil, Paul Tattersfield and Jay.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> Dear Working Group members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your eagle eyes and helpful comments on the last draft of our
>> Initial Report, last circulated in December 2016. Staff has now updated the
>> draft with all the suggestions and comments received. The updated draft
>> Initial Report is available for download and review on our WG wiki space, in
>> both clean and redlined Word and PDF versions (as you prefer):
>> https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that there are likely to be some remaining formatting and
>> typographical errors that staff has not yet caught in this version; we will
>> of course be sure to review the final document carefully prior to publishing
>> for public comment. Please note also that we have added in the latest WG
>> Charter (as amended by the GNSO Council in April 2015) and new Annexes (per
>> Phil’s suggestion) that show the full text of the IGO Small Group Proposal
>> and compilation of GAC advice on the topic since 2012. We have also restored
>> the footnote numbering in Professor Swaine’s memo and added in a list of WG
>> members.
>>
>>
>>
>> As agreed on our last call, please let us know if you spot any significant
>> errors or omissions by next Friday 13 January 2017. Following that date,
>> staff will do one last pass through the document and prepare it for
>> publication for public comment, early the following week (week beginning 16
>> January 2017). With a 40-day comment period, this means that the public
>> comment forum will close at the end of February, in time for ICANN58.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mary Wong
>>
>> Senior Policy Director
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>
>> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp