<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>It would be extremely helpful to have them in another format. I've been trying to open them in Excel but no luck (admittedly, I am allergic to Excel which is why I went into trademarks and not patents). <br><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter<br>
GNSO Review WP Analysis<br>
From: Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Mon, April 25, 2016 8:20 am<br>
To: Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br>
Cc: "James M. Bladel" <<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>>, WUKnoben<br>
<<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>>, GNSO Council List<br>
<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as<br>
part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel<br>
document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the<br>
recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any<br>
case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the<br>
comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as<br>
these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been<br>
intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be<br>
limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and<br>
others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to<br>
encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and<br>
priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of<br>
the process. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Marika<br>
<br>
On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hi Marika and all,<br>
><br>
>Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me.<br>
><br>
>For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue too<br>
>much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which was<br>
>held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the<br>
>spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment to show<br>
>these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I have not<br>
>missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback<br>
>accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, 21,<br>
>23, 32, 35 and 36.<br>
><br>
>Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of recommendations<br>
>does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from ³Red²<br>
>to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change was a<br>
>result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment to the<br>
>motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment.<br>
><br>
>I hope this is somehow helpful.<br>
><br>
>Thanks.<br>
><br>
>Amr<br>
><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>