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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi J. Scott and Osvaldo,

May I seek further clarification from both of you regarding your objections to 
this letter being a WP position?

For one thing, you seem to both be under the impression that through this 
letter, the WP is taking a general position against constituency representation 
on the GNSO council, such as is the case with the CSG. I don’t see it that way. 
All the letter does is say that the WP does not believe that wired constituency 
representation on council is generalisable to all stakeholder groups (including 
the NCSG, which has constituencies) given the research done and reasoning 
provided in the final Westlake report and recommendations. It does not, in any 
way, state that the WP believes that the CSG should be denied its council seats 
allocated to its three constituencies. Rather that there are more 
considerations that need to be taken into account, and that these are currently 
decisions made by each SG independently.

In addition, the letter is rather clear on the fact that the WP is only 
addressing the new recommendation 23 at this time, and not the rest of the 
final Westlake recommendations. So there is no criticism of any other 
work/recommendations of Westlake’s here at all.

Would it be possible to have you sign off on this if a revision of the letter 
is performed to address the concerns you both have raised — clarifying that the 
WP does not agree that recommendation 23 should be adopted, but that this 
position does not reflect any notion that constituency representation in the 
CSG is being objected to?

I am asking you this with the assumption that you agree that Westlake should 
have done more, and taken more of the community feedback into consideration 
before making the recommendation. This includes feedback already provided and 
documented, as well as feedback consisting of collaborative work with the WP on 
development of the recommendation based on the data at our disposal.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Novoa, Osvaldo <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> Although I have not participated in the discussions, I am the alternate to 
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ISPCP representative, I have been following the 
> discussion.
> I think that the ISPCP cannot share this statement.  First, in our opinion 
> Westlake work was very good and sugested a lot of improvements.  Second, 
> regarding Recommendation 23 we are not totally against it, it has some merit, 
> though we accept that it must be revised considering the particularities of 
> the different groups in the GNSO.  The arguments against having council 
> representation for each constituency in the Council can be applied to the CSG 
> and they could be valid, also the arguments for the contrary could also be 
> applied to the NCSG.  I think it is a point to be considered and not 
> discarded without the comment of the community.
> I like Chuck's idea of each member of the group stating if it is in favour or 
> against the recommendation.
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Osvaldo Novoa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] En 
> nombre de Gomes, Chuck
> Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Septiembre de 2015 16:36
> Para: Jen Wolfe; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> CC: Amr Elsadr
> Asunto: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party Draft 
> Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report
> 
> 
> Looks fine to me Jen.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Amr Elsadr
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party 
> Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report
> 
> Thanks, Chuck.  I am attaching a revised version of the draft communication.  
> I accepted Amr's changes and added a few of my own (redlined in the attached 
> document).  I also made the formatting/renumbering changes.  I went ahead and 
> accepted the formatting changes to keep it easier to read.  Please let me 
> know if you have any concerns with the proposed revisions.
> 
> If any one else would like to make revisions, please just let us know so we 
> can continue to track versions appropriately.  Again, we are targeting to 
> provide this draft to council by Thursday before their meeting.  If I don't 
> receive any objections, I will provide to staff to circulate to GNSO Council 
> on Thursday morning (EDT).
> 
> Pending feedback from Council, we will either proceed with providing this to 
> the OEC or, if there is objection in the community or from Council, we will 
> notify the OEC that there is concern about Revised Recommendation 23 and that 
> a more formal statement with be forthcoming, pending time for review and 
> comment.
> 
> Thanks again for your continued support of this effort- have a great day!
> 
> 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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:43 AM
> To: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review Working Party 
> Draft Statement on Westlake Goverance’s Final GNSO Review Report
> 
> Amr's edits look fine to me.
> 
> Jen - I fully support you adding your comments about the other 
> recommendations and also restructuring as you think best.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:49 AM
> To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Amr Elsadr
> Subject: 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
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido 
> únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser 
> confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al 
> remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el 
> e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está 
> prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por 
> cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del 
> mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier 
> comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad 
> de la Información
> 
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
> addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
> immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached 
> files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity 
> that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible 
> for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security 
> Policy.
>