FW: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report
I am forwarding the revised document from Amr. Thanks, Amr for taking the first pass at making revisions noted. If you plan to make edits, please send a quick note around so we can track version control. I would like to add my suggestion that we include either in the opening, conclusion or both that there are 35 other recommendations, many of which there is wide spread consensus for support, based upon public comments, and that we, as the Working Party will be meeting to discuss recommendations on implementation. Please let me know if that continues to be acceptable to everyone. We still need to restructure the numbering as well, per our discussion. I'm happy to do that. Please let me know, though, if anyone else wants to make substantive changes and I'll wait to make the structure changes and incorporate my above comment. We are targeting delivering this to GNSO Council by Thursday, prior to the council meeting. If anyone from the BC or IPC can offer comments, that would be greatly helpful. There was no one on the last two calls and just want to make sure you do not object to this communication. Thanks so much for your continued support and commitment to this process! Jen JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57 PM To: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report Hi, I’ve attached a document to this email with the changes I suggested during today’s call, along with a couple more. As suggested by Chuck, I used a clean copy of the document following the edits provided by Bill, then made redline changes to that so that all changes following today’s call are clearly visible. Could you please forward this to the working party list for consideration? Thanks Jen. Amr Attachment:
Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reportspbd + edits by AE.docx > On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Jen. > > Amr > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Sending you the draft to see it more easily. >> >> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB >> FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM >> 513.746.2800 X 1 OR CELL 513.238.4348 >> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011-2014 >> What will you do with your Dot Brand? : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P >> Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs http://ow.ly/Eblgc >> Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column http://ow.ly/EbljP >> Linked In Group: gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM >> >> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] >> On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:13 AM >> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party >> Draft Statement on Westlake Goverances 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 dont work for us, and a couple >> amplifications wed 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> 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> >> >> <Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reportspbd.pdf> >
|