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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I regret that I will not have arrived in Dublin in time for this meeting.

Jen can you please forward the latest iteration of the draft statement to
the list.  I think the last I have is a redline from you on Sept. 22?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>
>
>