[Rt4-whois] FW: Executive Summary - clean and checked [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thu May 3 10:49:30 UTC 2012

Thank you Peter

All of your comments and proposed amendments seem sensible to me.

I think you raise good questions on the IDN recommendations, and look to
those in the IDN small group to response, please.

Thanks

Emily

On 3 May 2012 03:16, Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>wrote:

> Hello all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks to all for the hard work on this – I think it is a very good piece
> of work.****
>
> ** **
>
> Like Emily, I have avoided making any comments of substance, and I think
> we have worked well to achieve really clear and balanced recommendations,
> and have worked well together as a team to reach those positions.****
>
> ** **
>
> That said, I did make a few edits and comments where I thought it would
> help clarity and consistency.****
>
> ** **
>
> First, I edited a few minor easy-to-fix typos in revision mode (e.g. a
> missing full stop, some places where we said ‘Whois’ instead of ‘WHOIS’, a
> missing ‘the’, etc).****
>
> ** **
>
> I also spotted a number of formatting and stylistic issues that would be
> good to address, but I did not make all of the necessary changes, as I
> expect we will adopt a consistent style across the whole report, and I
> don’t know what that is. The main ones I noticed were:****
>
> ** **
>
> **·       **The indenting of dot points is inconsistent across the
> document (sometimes we indent them, sometimes not)****
>
> **·       **Sometimes acronyms are spelled out, at other times not, or
> not on their first usage (I started noting some obvious instances, but
> stopped, as there were a lot). I did not try to impose a fix for this, as I
> can’t remember if we’re using a glossary or not? ****
>
> **·       **We are inconsistent about capitalising (eg ‘compliance’ and
> ‘Compliance’) – my personal preference is not to unnecessarily capitalise,
> but in either case we should be consistent****
>
> ** **
>
> This is pretty minor stuff, but would nonetheless be good to fix in my
> opinion, if possible.****
>
> ** **
>
> Lastly, and of more substance:****
>
> ** **
>
> **·       **I made a couple of comments in the IDN section – I do not
> want to change the intent of this section (which I broadly agree with).
> However, I have made some comments about the clarity, as there were a
> couple of areas where the current text appeared unclear or ambiguous – at
> least to me. I haven’t offered text in all instances, so will look to
> others to help clarify if possible. These are not show-stoppers for me, but
> more about clarity.****
>
> **·       **I highlighted the accuracy text already commented on by
> Susan, and support her proposed changes to keep our references to
> inaccuracy consistent (I didn’t make the changes, but only highlighted the
> text, in case others disagree).****
>
> ** **
>
> All of my comments and edits are in revision mode, and none of them are
> show-stoppers for me, so if others disagree I’m happy for them not to be
> picked up.****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope this helps.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Emily Taylor
> *Sent:* Thursday, 3 May 2012 3:25 AM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Executive Summary - clean and checked****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all****
>
>
> Alice, as agreed this morning, has gone through and produced a clean
> version of the Executive Summary.****
>
> ** **
>
> I have now reviewed this for sense, and attach a mark up showing the
> following:****
>
> ** **
>
> 1. correction of a few minor typos****
>
> 2. Page 1: our work has taken 18 months, so I put that in instead of
> "year-long"****
>
> 3. Page 5: recommendation 1 I changed "take" to "taking" in the last
> bullet point for sense.****
>
> 4. Page 11: on the second bullet point (recommendation 10) I added that
> the contact details are "for the privacy/proxy service provider".  This
> takes on a comment/suggestion made by Seth a few days ago in notes on the
> draft to say that the sense of this bullet point was not clear.****
>
> 5. Page 11: I think we should put in a footnote to say that "thin" whois
> will be explained in the glossary (and  check that it is!)****
>
> 6. Page 13 (findings for IDNs): I have included Sarmad's proposed language
> described on this morning's call.****
>
> ** **
>
> That's all - it reads well, and I think we should be proud of it.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are more nit picky points that I wanted to make about certain
> recommendations, but have held back.  We're done.****
>
> ** **
>
> If you would like to make your own comments, please do so as soon as
> possible today.****
>
> ** **
>
> Alice - please can you take in these tracked changes and now combine the
> Executive summary into the final document for publication.****
>
> ** **
>
> Alice - the final document should also include the new chapter on
> compliance (cleaned up - let me know if you'd like me to review this once
> you've taken in the edits), and replacement of Findings and Recommendations
> chapters with the new text from the Executive Summary.****
>
> ** **
>
> Kind regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Emily
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
>
>
>    ****
>
> *
> *
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.****
>
> ** **
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s)
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all
> copies of the original message.
>
> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam,
> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway
> products please visit www.axway.com.
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
>

-- 

*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120503/d630061d/attachment.html 