Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
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 Attachment:
GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL) + Feedback from Webinar on April 12 2016.pdf > On Apr 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, April 25, 2016 8:20 am > To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, WUKnoben > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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 > >
|