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

Tue Apr 26 19:46:15 UTC 2016

Correct, OEC staff support confirmed that they will provide the OEC with a
summary of the feedback received. Based on this confirmation, are you (and
others) fine with the letter being submitted in its current format (see
attached)?

Best regards,

Marika

On 26/04/16 07:31, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>This all sounds pretty good to me. The objective here to me is to be sure
>that the OEC is made aware of all the feedback that has been provided. It
>doesn’t really matter to me how they get the information, as long as they
>do get it.
>
>So if the OEC staff support is prepping a summary of the feedback, I
>believe that would do (along with our reference to the webinar). However,
>I would prefer to no rely solely on the recording/transcripts as a means
>of transmitting this info.
>
>Also, one of the main reasons I felt that the Council should include all
>this feedback in its own communique to the OEC, is because the amendment
>to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment was
>selective in incorporating feedback from the webinar. Granted, the only
>feedback taken into consideration by the amended motion was the only
>feedback that resulted in a change to one of the outputs of the working
>party. So again, my personal view is that it matters more to me that the
>OEC receives the necessary information. Less important how they receive
>it, and from whom.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Amr
>
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, Amr for your response. My understanding is that the staff
>> supporting the OEC will also be providing a summary of the feedback
>> received during the webinar as one of the public inputs that has been
>> received throughout this process so the question is whether you and
>>other
>> Council members are of the view that it would also be worth including
>> these as part of the transmittal letter. Do note that the letter already
>> refers to the webinar and includes a link to the recording - maybe that
>>is
>> sufficient as in that way, there is no need to confirm the comments that
>> have been attributed to different people, as the OEC can review the
>> recording instead (note, I have seen that the transcript is now also
>> available so we could include that link as well)?
>> 
>> Looking forward to receiving your feedback,
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> On 26/04/16 05:19, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marika,
>>> 
>>> With the exception of the comments made regarding the revised
>>> recommendation 23, I would say that the comments all address the
>>> feasibility of implementation, one way or another. Maybe not so much
>>> priority.
>>> 
>>> And to answer your questions, I only included the comments in the
>>> spreadsheet for the benefit of fellow councillors. I just wanted to
>>>make
>>> it easy for anyone reviewing these comments now to be able to
>>>cross-check
>>> them against the appropriate Westlake recommendations and the
>>>associated
>>> working party assessments. I still believe that if these are included,
>>> that they should be an annex to the working party’s feedback. I have no
>>> preference regarding this being done using this format, or any other.
>>> Perhaps one that is a little tidier than what I’ve done. :)
>>> 
>>> And yes…, ideally, it would be good to confirm with each of the
>>> commenters that they wish for their feedback during the webinar to be
>>> included here, and that their comments have actually been captured
>>> correctly. Several comments were made by fellow councillors, but there
>>> are more from other GNSO community members. Towards the end of the
>>> webinar, a comment was raised requesting that all this input be
>>>included
>>> in whatever the GNSO Council considers during its deliberations, and
>>> there seemed to be agreement during the webinar that this be done (or
>>>at
>>> least, there were no objections). This is one of the reasons why I
>>>raised
>>> the issue of missing comments during the discussion we had on the
>>> amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party
>>> assessment. I will note though that at least one of the commenters had
>>>to
>>> drop off the webinar before this came up, so double-checking with each
>>>of
>>> them is not a bad idea at all.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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: Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - updated 21 April 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 994064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160426/acb44807/Transmittalletter-GNSOReviewWPanalysis-updated21April2016.docx>
-------------- 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/20160426/acb44807/smime.p7s>