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

 
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 10:18 PM
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