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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

Apologies if I overstepped in including some of the comments made during the 
webinar that were not meant to be transmitted. My understanding at the end of 
the webinar was that folks wanted their feedback to be conveyed to the OEC. 
Good thing we double-checked this.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 9:19 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
>