[nc-budget] RE: Draft #1 - Request for Sponsors
Thanks for the timely and helpful feedback Philip.
I made the following change in response to your first suggestion: "during
the 12-month period beginning with July 2000." The reason for doing it this
way is that the NSI Registry proposal offered the $100,000 paid in four
quarterly installments. If we used the calendar year, that would only leave
2 quarters. BTW, does the NC have a fiscal year and if so is it Jan-Dec?
I made the rest of the changes.
My plan is to incorporate all changes made into the document using the Word
tracking function. I will then distribute a copy that clearly shows the
changes. I will wait until I receive more feedback before doing this.
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 3:26 AM
To: DNSO budget; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: Draft #1 - Request for Sponsors
Chuck, thanks for the forward of the sponsor's proposal now that I have
taken over from Theresa in the budget group.
I think it reads well and have just a couple of suggestions.
1. Can we specify the NC fiscal year (e.g. Jan to Dec 2000 or whatever).
2. "As a top priority, the Names Council plans" . Should we say "as the top
priority?" . If not the other top priorities need a mention.
3. "Developing processes and procedures that will minimise the amount of
subjectivity and increase the amount of measurable objective criteria in the
This comes over a bit defensive and as potential sponsor might be put off by
the sound of a messy history!
Perhaps better is: "Developing processes and procedures that will increase
the amount of measurable objective criteria in the
4. "fully open, transparent and accountable manner". I know this phrasing is
not yours and keeps on cropping up but it does seem repetitive. The
journalist training in me starts to emerge (apologies).
- what is "not fully open", what is half transparent?
- what is the distinction between "open" and "transparent"?
I would opt for "a transparent and accountable manner"