Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss
Dear all, I support the call for drafts to be made available at least 48 hours in advance of the call. Thank you, Ayden Férdeline
On 31 Aug 2018, at 11:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear All, Sorry I forgot to mention one important point to faciltate the review of proposed amendment Should any text be amended the part/ parts deteled must be shown with redline and the part added with underlined approach. This would facilitate the review of the expected revision Tks Kavouss On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:19 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I support the call for drafts to be made available at least 48 hours in advance of the call.
Thank you,
Ayden Férdeline
On 31 Aug 2018, at 11:43, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Kavouss: Thank you for your thoughts on this. Ordinarily, I would agree with each one of your points as they reflect sound operating practices. Under certain circumstances, I think we might depart from them. 1) The registrars in their Triage comments for §§ 4.4.1, 4.4.3-4.4.7, 4.4.11-4.4.13, often recommended that they be written in a substantially different way. In these cases, a re-write (rather than an edit) might be more efficacious. I do not know what degree of collaboration took place between ICANN and the contracted parties in the writing of the temporary specification. But absent some signal from the contracted parties that they had a substantial hand in it, I see no reason that deference should be paid to the original writing. If the replacement language is clear and a sound basis for a consensus policy, I hope we can support it. 2) Also, 48 hours before the Thursday meeting also happens to be before the Tuesday meeting. If an edited or replacement text is available prior to the Tuesday meeting, I don’t know why the authors cannot present it and take preliminary questions. That opportunity might help the readers in their consideration of the text prior to the Thursday call. So again, I agree with the spirit of your comments (and Ayden’s support of it), In this case, I think we’d be better off taking some time to review the material if it is available. 3) Finally, I take note of your comment regarding adjectives. My view is aligned with yours in that the use of adjectives (and particularly adverbs) often lack certainty, require explanation and should be avoided where possible. Let me know what you think of this. I understand it is contrary to your views in some ways. We agree in principle but, on occasion, we might consider departingt from those principles where it provides a better path. Best regards, Kurt
On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss
Dear Kurt I fully agree with your arguments ,in particular, that in some limited instances we may be obliged to rewrite as trying to modify an existing text which would end to a text difficult to follow. To review draft available materials on Tuesday is not excluded provided that are received Monday 29,00 hours allowing us to review Tks very much got your kindly attention and reply Kavouss Have a pleasant Sunday Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Sep 2018, at 09:00, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss:
Thank you for your thoughts on this. Ordinarily, I would agree with each one of your points as they reflect sound operating practices.
Under certain circumstances, I think we might depart from them.
1) The registrars in their Triage comments for §§ 4.4.1, 4.4.3-4.4.7, 4.4.11-4.4.13, often recommended that they be written in a substantially different way. In these cases, a re-write (rather than an edit) might be more efficacious. I do not know what degree of collaboration took place between ICANN and the contracted parties in the writing of the temporary specification. But absent some signal from the contracted parties that they had a substantial hand in it, I see no reason that deference should be paid to the original writing. If the replacement language is clear and a sound basis for a consensus policy, I hope we can support it.
2) Also, 48 hours before the Thursday meeting also happens to be before the Tuesday meeting. If an edited or replacement text is available prior to the Tuesday meeting, I don’t know why the authors cannot present it and take preliminary questions. That opportunity might help the readers in their consideration of the text prior to the Thursday call. So again, I agree with the spirit of your comments (and Ayden’s support of it), In this case, I think we’d be better off taking some time to review the material if it is available.
3) Finally, I take note of your comment regarding adjectives. My view is aligned with yours in that the use of adjectives (and particularly adverbs) often lack certainty, require explanation and should be avoided where possible.
Let me know what you think of this. I understand it is contrary to your views in some ways. We agree in principle but, on occasion, we might consider departingt from those principles where it provides a better path.
Best regards,
Kurt
On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss
Hi all, Thanks for these comments. I think there needs to be adequate time to review documents. As we are appointed to this EPDP as representatives of our respective community groups, we also have a responsibility to consult with our part of the community. When documents appear with less than 48 hours notice we simply cannot do that. I appreciate we need to be agile and there are times when this will not be feasible, but when we are talking about a substantial re-write of a section of the Temp Spec, this is absolutely critical.
2) Also, 48 hours before the Thursday meeting also happens to be before the Tuesday meeting. If an edited or replacement text is available prior to the Tuesday meeting, I don’t know why the authors cannot present it and take preliminary questions. That opportunity might help the readers in their consideration of the text prior to the Thursday call. So again, I agree with the spirit of your comments (and Ayden’s support of it), In this case, I think we’d be better off taking some time to review the material if it is available.
Can I clarify this remark please, because perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of the meeting on Thursday? Isn’t that when we intend for the text to be introduced for the first time — surely we don’t intend for it to be finalised then? I think we would be going into Thursday’s meeting better informed, with preliminary questions to ask from our members and based upon our own careful reading of the text, if it is circulated on the Tuesday ahead of the Thursday meeting. If you are suggesting the text can be sent half an hour before the Tuesday meeting and we can read it on the fly and come up with a few immediate questions then, I think that is not going to be effective and that would not be an approach I would support.
3) Finally, I take note of your comment regarding adjectives. My view is aligned with yours in that the use of adjectives (and particularly adverbs) often lack certainty, require explanation and should be avoided where possible.
I agree with this. Clear and unambiguous language is best. Thanks again. Looking forward to our next call on Tuesday. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
On 2 Sep 2018, at 10:16, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt I fully agree with your arguments ,in particular, that in some limited instances we may be obliged to rewrite as trying to modify an existing text which would end to a text difficult to follow. To review draft available materials on Tuesday is not excluded provided that are received Monday 29,00 hours allowing us to review Tks very much got your kindly attention and reply Kavouss Have a pleasant Sunday
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Sep 2018, at 09:00, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss:
Thank you for your thoughts on this. Ordinarily, I would agree with each one of your points as they reflect sound operating practices.
Under certain circumstances, I think we might depart from them.
1) The registrars in their Triage comments for §§ 4.4.1, 4.4.3-4.4.7, 4.4.11-4.4.13, often recommended that they be written in a substantially different way. In these cases, a re-write (rather than an edit) might be more efficacious. I do not know what degree of collaboration took place between ICANN and the contracted parties in the writing of the temporary specification. But absent some signal from the contracted parties that they had a substantial hand in it, I see no reason that deference should be paid to the original writing. If the replacement language is clear and a sound basis for a consensus policy, I hope we can support it.
2) Also, 48 hours before the Thursday meeting also happens to be before the Tuesday meeting. If an edited or replacement text is available prior to the Tuesday meeting, I don’t know why the authors cannot present it and take preliminary questions. That opportunity might help the readers in their consideration of the text prior to the Thursday call. So again, I agree with the spirit of your comments (and Ayden’s support of it), In this case, I think we’d be better off taking some time to review the material if it is available.
3) Finally, I take note of your comment regarding adjectives. My view is aligned with yours in that the use of adjectives (and particularly adverbs) often lack certainty, require explanation and should be avoided where possible.
Let me know what you think of this. I understand it is contrary to your views in some ways. We agree in principle but, on occasion, we might consider departingt from those principles where it provides a better path.
Best regards,
Kurt
On Aug 31, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Kurt Dear All Thanks to those who have generously volunteered to look st Section 4 , in particular, certain sub paragraph of that section as well as corresponding parts of Appendix C Having said that I wish to emphasise that it is nit expected to receive new draft from scratch ( total redrafting ) but merely suggesting necessary amendments to the existing text to maintain the relative consistency with the initial documents In addition, the distinguished drafter need to take into account comments already received in TIRAGE from. Various stakeholder groups and ACs as well as those expressed during the discussion( transcriptions, recordings and chats Moreover, it is absolutely necessary to avoid overlapping, repetitions and double application as may contained in other sub paragraphs drafted by others. Some sort of coordination thus nay be required. These suggested drafts should possibly made available 48 hours before the Thursday ( 11th ) meeting which needs to be seen by Kurt before . Agenda of the next meeting should be limited to certain specific issue and not discussing various points at the same time. Attention of respectful drafters are drawn to the fact that several adjectives or terms used which are required to be clearly defined to facilitate the implementation of the suggested / modified sub paragraphs This was raised st various instances and raised by some sub teams Best regards Kavouss
participants (4)
-
Arasteh -
Ayden Férdeline -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Kurt Pritz