[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

To Sam:

I?m pretty sure I agree with your position on this, but I?m still not sure what you?re proposing regarding the joint NCSG/CSG statement. Are you saying that if it could be edited to reflect these thoughts, it is worth signing now?

My personal feeling is that this is something that can wait. We can always pick this up later once we?re done with dealing with the Westlake recommendations, and whatever way the board SIC decides to react to them.

To all:

I?m guessing Rafik really needs an answer from us to be able to communicate our decision to his CSG counterparts. There are obviously also those of us who initially wished to collaborate with the CSG on a joint statement during the NCPH intercessional (I think back in January), then followed up with a breakfast meeting in BA. So there are NCSG members who have thoughts on why we should sign this. I?m just trying to figure out where folks stand on this.

I should note that this letter does not appear (as drafted) to be a response to the public comment period that will be closing in about 24 hours, but a letter addressed to Steve Crocker with a copy sent to Richard Westlake. So taking some time to bring others, not subscribed to this list, in on this conversation seems like an option to me as well.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 
> Amr, et. al.,  
> 
> Here are my two comments about this:
> 
> 	? My view: Given the widely shared grave reservations about the methodological flaws in the GNSO review report, the GNSO constituency communities should make sure that the report is not used as a basis for actions based on unwarranted inferences drawn from the report. However, GNSO constituency members have taken the opportunity of the report to comment on issues raised, or not properly raised. These can be used as a starting point for a stakeholder dialogue around GNSO reform.
> 
> 	? An NCSG PC Position: Here is the sense of what I think we should say, along with not signing the statement. None of the various constituencies within NCSG are in favor of using the report as a basis for action. All have reservations about both the process and the content of the report. In a most favorable light the report is seen as the basis for stakeholder/constituency dialogue within the GNSO community. Various constituencies, and individuals within those constituencies, have offered constructive comments on some of the issues, and ways forward, but there is not a simple consensus around endorsing a single statement, that of the CSG or any other. The community awaits the commencement of a dialogue.
> That is my humble position.
> Sam 
> 
>> 
>> On 7/30/2015 5:56 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There's a deadline coming up on this, and we've only heard from a handful of PC members. Could others weigh in with opinions on whether we should sign this statement along with the CSG?
>> Thanks.
>> Amr