<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information
- To: "'Grant FORSYTH'" <Grant.Forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information
- From: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:43:42 +0200
- In-reply-to: <54F5AEE2A110BF489CB84016732663370ED42673@takaex01.clear.co.nz>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcWu6XtZAPWXpuNWQxiKTztPIFNpFgAAGetQ
Grant
Thank you for your comments. You will have seen my separate email which
addresses the formatting issues you have raised. All the items you have
asked for in a previous email have been included. I manage version control
by changing the end of the document name to reflect the date on which the
document was finished. That way I have previous full versions to refer to
so I can track changes carefully.
I agree with the footer comment - it reflects other comments I've received
and I will, once we finish at COB Brussels time Friday 2 Sept, make some
further amendments.
Liz
_____
From: Grant FORSYTH [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:34 PM
To: 'Liz Williams'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information
Liz et al
Attached is a marked up version of your TOR
Besides the specific comments marked up I provide the following additional
comments:
Formatting
1 It would be desirable if all GNSO staff reports/papers etc conformed to an
agreed standard layout with a minimum set of information (which I have
provided here as mark ups)
2 please ensure all paragraphs and bullets are numbered
3. Given that ICANN is an international body, I recommend that dates be
provided in full to avoid confusion. IE 1 September 2005, not 1/9/05 or
9/1/05. Dates of documents (unless it is explicitly noted as the "print"
date) should not use the MS Word "insert date option", but rather be typed
in. This avoids the original date of the document changing.
4 I personally don't think the moving of the questions/analysis to footers
works. My preference is that they be moved to an annex
I look forward advancing the development of the TOR on the call.
Regards
Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
TelstraClear
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
AUCKLAND
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 029 912 5759
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 01 September, 2005 00:56
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information
Colleagues
Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so far. Please find
attached two documents. As per input from the conference call last week, I
have separated out the background information and devised another document
which looks more like a more formal TOR.
Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by
Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then forward an updated document to
the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account.
On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not receive the
document seven days prior to any meeting.
Any questions, come back to me.
Kind regards.
Liz
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
Tel: +32 2 234 7874
Fax: +32 2 234 7848
Mob: +61 414 26 9000
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|