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

[Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is on our agenda for our meeting next Monday in Dublin and agree that 
unless there is opposition, we should proceed with sending this to the OEC.  If 
there are any groups that oppose the letter, please provide your feedback so we 
can respond accordingly.

We have been given additional time from the OEC to respond on this and the 
other recommendations so we wanted to ensure that if there was an objection 
there was time for that to be voiced and that we all had sufficient time to 
review and respond.   

I look forward to seeing you all in Dublin and to our meeting next Monday at 7 
a.m. local time.  Thanks again for your continued support of this process!

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: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>; William Drake <wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx>; Sam 
Lanfranco <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx>; 
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO 
rec 23.


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
>