[gnso-review-dt] Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report

[William Drake <wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck

I am not at all happy to be put in this position but apparently it comes with 
the territory.   Thankfulness for two drive by shootings is just a really hard 
sell.

Bill

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks very much Bill.  I understanding the challenge of coordinating replies 
> and, in fact, am very pleased that you were very able to do it so quickly.  I 
> don’t understand why we wouldn’t thank Westlake and staff for their efforts.  
> That seems to me to be just simple courtesy.  In a quick read of your other 
> suggested edits, I didn’t see any that seem unworkable from my point of view.
>  
> Chuck
>  
>  
>  
> From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx>] 
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:13 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on 
> Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report
>  
> Hi 
>  
> Thanks Chuck for your work here, appreciated.  Sorry for the slow reply but 
> coordination takes time and nobody had factored another round of corrections 
> and rebuttals into their schedules.
>  
> You nicely make a number of the points NCUC would raise.  At the same time, 
> there are a couple passages that just don’t work for us, and a couple 
> amplifications we’d add.  I attach suggested edits to discuss on the call 
> later.  If we can get consensus on RT comments fine, if not ok we can each 
> submit separate replies as befits a process engineered to strengthen 
> divisions rather than promote consensus in the community.
>  
> Best
>  
> Bill
>  
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>  
> I took a first crack at possible Working Party comments on Westlake's 
> Recommendation 23 that we discussed in most of our meeting yesterday.  I have 
> to confess that I am not real satisfied with my draft but I hope that it will 
> facilitate our efforts to create one even if we ignore mine and start from 
> scratch.
>  
> If we do develop comments, I think that it would be important for us to try 
> to get unanimous approval by Working Team members who participate in writing 
> and approving the comments or, if we cannot do that, at least provide an 
> opportunity for minority statements.
>  
> Open and free criticism is welcome including from those in the NPOC like 
> Klaus.
>  
> Chuck
> <Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Report.docx>