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

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

Chuck,
I am traveling today but I will try to write something before Monday though my 
English might not be that good.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 15 oct. 2015, a las 15:02, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
>
> Osvaldo,
>
> As I communicated to Sam, I sure would appreciate finding out what elements 
> of the letter you have problems with.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:02 AM
> To: WUKnoben
> Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; 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.
>
> 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.

________________________________

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.