Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> >>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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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 >>>>> >>> > Attachment:
Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - updated 21 April 2016.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|