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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>>