Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.
I agree in parts, Amr. The letter could be sent making clear that additional WP work is needed. Our concern is more with the general tone. Almost four pages are used for counterarguments to Rec 23 which may imply the WP has already assessed the issue. To my knowledge this has not yet been the case. We think it should be done and should be clearly expressed that way. I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to comments - as usual. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 7:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: William Drake ; Sam Lanfranco ; Rudi Vansnick ; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxxSubject: 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 Attachment:
Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP_WUK edit.docx
|