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

gsshatan@lawabel.com

ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com

www.lawabel.com

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship