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

[WUKnoben]

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 at icann.org
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 at verisign.com> 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 at ISOC.BE> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Points on Westlake Goverance GNSO Review Final Reports from WP_WUK edit.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 28566 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151014/e3897a47/DraftPointsonWestlakeGoveranceGNSOReviewFinalReportsfromWP_WUKedit.docx>