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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Paul,

I’ve attached a pdf version of the table with the feedback captured from the webinar. It’s a rather large table to display in this format, so you will need to zoom in to see the very small text in each of the cells. I hope this helps.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL) + Feedback from Webinar on April 12 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 95786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160426/90731edb/GNSOReviewRecFeasibilityPrioritizationFINALFeedbackfromWebinaronApril122016.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, policy at paulmcgrady.com wrote:
> 
> 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). 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter
> GNSO Review WP Analysis
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: Mon, April 25, 2016 8:20 am
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, WUKnoben
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, GNSO Council List
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 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
> >