I agree to Chuck’s edits: - f.vi. should be deleted. I can’t recognize a difference in value compared to the chapeau text. - h.: My concern is with the last sentence “separability should persist...”) since it claims for an eternal fixing which I never would dare to implement. It should be deleted in my opinion. - g. (Multistakehoder principle): numbering should be “i.”. I also concur with Milton. Isn’t here “governance” more appropriate than “management”? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 10:18 PM To: Lise Fuhr ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles I made a couple more edits in item g at the end of the document. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 4:12 PM To: 'Lise Fuhr'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles I made a couple edits and suggested a third in my next to last comment. I also identified in my comments some possible action items that the CWG may need to perform as soon as possible assuming that the principles are adopted by the CWG. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:34 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles Dear All, We hereby send you a redline and a clean version of the Principles document. For the unresolved part, staff has done a table. We recommend that we focus on the outstanding issues, that are identified in the comments. We welcome any inputs on either the comments or on the redline draft. The document will be finalized on the next call. Best regards, Martin and Lise -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship