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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think it is sufficient to  acknowledge their report without adding
gratitude.

for politeness sake, it might be sufficient to say:

The Working Party wants to thank Westlake for delivery of their final
report and for participation in our meetings. We also want to thank the
staff members who provided consistent and invaluable support.

avri

On 21-Sep-15 10:54, William Drake wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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] 
>> *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>
>>
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus