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

[William Drake <wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:07 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I've tried to accomodate the text accordingly (see attached) and am open to 
> comments - as usual.
> 
If these edits would bring the ISP constituency on board then I’m all for them. 
 Are there suggested edits from IPC and BC as well, bearing in mind again that 
the letter is not saying constituency-based Councilors are problematic where 
this has been chosen, only that the case for generalizing the approach to other 
groups in a top down manner has not been made?

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:38 PM, Sam Lanfranco <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> As a strategy I would prefer to treat the Westlake GNSO review products as 
> "food for though" for a bottom up addressing of where goeth GNSO (in the 
> light of Westlake, IANA, Accountability, Membership and what every impacts on 
> context here).
> 
> As a part of that strategy (and we are talking about strategy not outcomes)I 
> would urge the Board to sit on hit hands and wait until it hears the results 
> of an open and transparent dialogue, sensitive to all factors impacting 
> context at the present time. Of course, I recognize that the NCSG consensus 
> may differ from this position.

Isn’t this in effect what we’re doing, saying please treat as food for thought, 
make no decisions based on Westlake 23, and let us have our own process?  That 
being the case, would NPOC agree to send the letter, I’ve not been clear…?



Thanks

Bill