RE: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I feel the same as you Amr; that is why I would like to understand what parts 
of the statement are problematic. 

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: William Drake; Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO 
rec 23.

Hi,

Apologies about revisiting this thread after so much time.

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Bill,
>  
> I think it is still somewhat up in the error.  I suggested in our call 
> yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but 
> everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time.

Could we possibly put aside some time during the WP session in Dublin to 
discuss this. It’d be a good opportunity with a number of the WP members being 
present. I’m having trouble understanding why we haven’t been able to achieve 
consensus on this yet.

I’m very willing to have changes made to the statement to accommodate any 
concerns expressed by NPOC, IPC and ISPCP, however, I don’t really see why 
there is a problem with the current draft. So far, IMHO, the feedback provided 
by the three constituencies does not really conflict with anything in there, 
except for something in the NPOC statement:

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[SNIP]

> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions 
> and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the 
> broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report 
> content where validation is not warranted.

I don’t really agree with this. It’d be helpful to understand why addressing 
specific recommendations leads to overlooking broader issues of methodology, or 
validates the content of the report. Personally, I would expect the working 
party to have feedback on both; the methods used in the study in addition to 
the substantive recommendations. Why does NPOC believe they are mutually 
exclusive?

It’d be great if we can narrow down specific language in the statement where 
disagreements may exist, so that changes can be suggested. I believe this would 
be a constructive use of our time in Dublin. I believe it is critically 
important that the working party achieves consensus on this topic if it is to 
provide any helpful feedback to the GNSO Council and the OEC.

Thanks.

Amr