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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the feedback Osvaldo.

Chuck

________________________________________
From: Novoa, Osvaldo [onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:46 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Amr Elsadr; 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.

Chuck,
I’ve been reviewing the different drafts and I feel more confortable with your 
original proposal with the elimination of the references to the NCSG.
Best regards,
Osvaldo


> El 15 oct. 2015, a las 3:21 p.m., Novoa, Osvaldo <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> escribió:
>
> 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.