I have no problem with deleting them but if they are in there they should be labeled.
Chuck
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 1:32 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
I believe the annexes should be deleted. We shouldn't overplay the statistical validity of these charts, which were really intended to be internal working tools. They are way too abbreviated to be useful to the reader and will be easily
misinterpreted without significant explanation, which is not the point of this document. The high points have already been made in the narrative of the document.
Greg
On Sunday, February 1, 2015, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
This is looking very good to me. I have just one question: Wouldn’t it be a good idea to refer
to the two annexes in the primary body of the document?
Chuck
From:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 12:41 PM
To:
cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
--
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman
Frayne & Schwab
Partner | IP | Technology
| Media | Internet
666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct
212-885-9253
| Main
212-949-9022
Fax
212-949-9190
| Cell
917-816-6428
ICANN-related:
gregshatanipc@gmail.com