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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Great. Thanks Jen.

Amr

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:10 PM, 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
>> 
> 
>