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

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And for the avoidance of doubt, as there appears to be some, the registrar 
stakeholder group supports the statement as drafted
Regards
Michele 

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://www.blacknight.irish
Sent from a small shiny object so excuse fat fingers!

> On 13 Oct 2015, at 18:54, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>