RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Missing part of ALAC comments on draft report.

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 06/11/2013 07:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Thanks Alan.  I have two questions for you:
>
> 1.  What would a " a cohesive and consistent set of policies " look 
> like?  I didn't understand your point in the call today and still don't.
What we have is a essentially a grab-bag of recommendation that 
achieved a reasonably high level of consensus. I have not looked at 
it in detail, but I don't feel comfortable saying that if we 
implemented what we are recommending, and just that, we would have a 
suitable and defendable set of rules.

> 2.  Recognizing that the procedures still have to be developed, why 
> do you doubt that " the exception procedures outlined in the report 
> would be effective "?  Another way to ask my questions is this:  why 
> do you think that effective exception procedures could not be developed?
I am not saying they could not be developed. Just that I don't 
believe that the examples in the draft report will result in 
something sufficiently fast and cheap.
Alan


> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: IGO INGO
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Missing part of ALAC comments on draft report.
>
> As I mentioned on the call today, the specific positions on the 
> recommendations was accidentally omitted. Here is the content (the 
> ALAC statement minus the formal header). I will ensure that the 
> formal statement is amended.
> Alan