I think that there is merit in keeping Annex A. It is relatively easy to understand. Annex B is not and I would strongly support removing it. I can live with both being deleted. Alan
At 01/02/2015 01:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
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 ĂŻ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship