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

["Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf-Ulrich,
That is exactly my feeling. It seems as if we are disregarding the rest of the 
report due to Rec.23. I would prefer to say that we haven't study it in detail 
but it is clear that as it is it cannot be applied to all the Stake Holders 
Groups.
We should discuss it on Monday.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 14 oct. 2015, a las 22:09, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> escribió:
>
> 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@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
> <Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP_WUK 
> edit.docx>

________________________________

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente 
al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. 
Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente 
respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los 
posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier 
utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad 
que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna 
responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida 
incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. 
Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not 
the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any 
communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.