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

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

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich.

Chuck

________________________________________
From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 3:53 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Amr Elsadr
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.

I'm ok with this, Chuck. My approach was more relazed to use the present WP
as the platform for the work rather than leave it just to the GNSO community
as written in the former text.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:08 AM
To: WUKnoben ; Amr Elsadr
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.


I am fine with the edits Wolf-Ulrich made except possibly this one: "The WP
together with the GNSO community should first be given the opportunity to
conduct its own internal assessment and, if there are some problems that
need to be solved, develop possible solutions for them."  I personally don't
think it is a matter of 'if there are some problems'.  Even Westlake
themselves identified some problems with this recommendations.  So I would
suggest tweaking this sentence a little.

Chuck

________________________________________
From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:07 PM
To: Amr Elsadr; 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.

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