[council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Mon Apr 25 15:20:21 UTC 2016


Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as
part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel
document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the
recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any
case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the
comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as
these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been
intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be
limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and
others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to
encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and
priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of
the process.  

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

>Hi Marika and all,
>
>Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me.
>
>For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue too
>much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which was
>held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the
>spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment to show
>these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I have not
>missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback
>accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, 21,
>23, 32, 35 and 36.
>
>Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of recommendations
>does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from ³Red²
>to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change was a
>result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment to the
>motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment.
>
>I hope this is somehow helpful.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Amr
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160425/f5d16eeb/smime.p7s>


More information about the council mailing list