Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
Yes, that is correct. Please find the final version attached. I’ll work with the leadership team to get this letter submitted to the OEC. Best regards, Marika On 27/04/16 05:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, > >Yes, I have no objection to this letter being sent on behalf of the >Council. And if my understanding is correct, and we will not be sending >any additional feedback, I’m assuming that the bracketed paragraph 3 in >the letter is no longer necessary? Is that right? > >Thanks. > >Amr > >> On Apr 26, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> >>wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - updated 21 April >>2016.docx> > Attachment:
Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - FINAL 27 April 2016.pdf Attachment:
smime.p7s
|