[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Sam Lanfranco]

Amr,

I feel that the Board needs to signal that it understands that the 
report is too flawed for anything other than the start of a serious 
in-house discussion about the GNSO. The Board needs to know that we 
would object to the Board using pieces of the report as a justification 
for any action on the GNSO

This would mean NCSG not signing on to the CSG response, while making it 
clear that NCSG does not oppose the CSG response. It should also be made 
clear that this does not prevent individuals from endorsing some or all 
of the CSG response in their private submissions.

The common goals are (a) no rash moves by the Board, (b) a 
multistakeholder discussion with a start agenda based on the issues 
raised (or overlooked) in the Westlake report, and based on items from 
individual comments on the Westlake report. I see the report as a 
lightening rod and not a lighthouse.

Sam

/On 30/07/2015 5:55 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote://
/
> /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 /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150730/da6c061a/attachment.html>