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

[Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Amr.  A good reminder to watch what you say in chat because it could end 
up being transmitted to the Board!

Best,
Paul 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> <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
>