[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Apologies regarding the delay in providing a draft NCSG response to the Westlake report. I am trying to get that done as soon as I can, but am also a bit preoccupied with selling all my furniture, packing up three years worth of junk to move back to Egypt (leaving Troms? in under a week).

Again?, am really sorry about being so late with this.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr
>> On Jul 27, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> I would feel more comfortable if we first discredit the Westlake report and recommendations, then start a review of the GNSO structure using a clean slate.
> 
> So where are we with the former?
>> 
>> What added to my concerns were the three comments submitted by the BRG, the INTA and NPOC (which I provided links to in my previous email). More recently, Steve DelBianco submitted the BC comment, which only reinforces my concerns regarding NCSG and CSG presenting any kind of united front on this matter.
> 
> I?ve read the comments.  None particularly concern me or make me think we shouldn?t press our own concerns if we want.  But if we no longer have concerns, then we don't.
> 
>> I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure.
> 
> You?ve been saying you don?t get peoples? concerns with the two house structure and I?ve not heard anyone express concerns with the two house structure, so I?m also feeling a disconnect as well.
> 
>> Anyway?, just to reaffirm my position on this; I am completely in favour of revising whether or not constituencies continue to serve any constructive purpose in the GNSO. I would argue that they do not. I?m more than certain that there are many others in the GNSO who disagree with me.
> 
> I think the issues vary across the GNSO so the answers may not be uniform and should be locally determined.  If we don?t have a conversation about it then obviously there will be no answers posed.
> 
>> I just don?t believe this is the right time to have this conversation.
> 
> Me neither but I don?t think it would be really soon.
> 
> Anyway, a further bilateral on this serves no purpose.  We are where we are.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill