[PC-NCSG] resending the GNSO documents

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Klaus,

Thanks for your response. However, I would like point something out regarding your reasons for not wishing to endorse it.

In principle, I certainly agree that it is always desirable to consult with the broader NCSG membership before the PC endorses any statement on behalf of the NCSG. I have actually expressed this same desire regarding the joint NCSG/CSG letter to Steve Crocker regarding the GNSO structure.

Having said that, the PC is perfectly within its mandate to endorse statements on behalf of the stakeholder group. The members of this committee are either elected councillors or appointees of the two NC constituencies (in addition to the NCSG Chair). The timing of this submission, being so close to the deadline, presents a far from perfect scenario, but it is what we have to deal with now.

You are, of course, free to make your decision based on what you perceive to be in the best interest of the NCSG. Just wanted to point out that this committee is always (unfortunately) likely to face this kind of situation, and we have a responsibility to manage such scenarios as best we can.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jul 31, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stephanie and Friends
> 
> I understand and appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this document. However, I feel that I can not agree on that this document is send as the position of the whole NCSG. It simply has not been discussed broadly enough and just the members of the PC is not enough for such an important letter.
> 
> I have no objection that the letter is forwarded with signatures on a personal basis.
> 
> Yours
> 
> Klaus 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2015 1:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> New version of the 2 pager folks, I have incorporated James' edits and added a mini paragraph acknowledging that the first 19 recommendations do attempt to deal with worker burnout ... 
>> Many thanks for the rapid turnaround James!! 
>> cheers SP 
>> 
>> On 2015-07-31 12:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 
>>> Let us say that at UTC 23:00 I will send them in as personal comments, if we have not achieved concensus on them yet.  That is about 6 hours from now folks, achieving consensus is doable if folks try.... 
>>> cheers Steph 
>>> 
>>> On 2015-07-31 11:34, Amr Elsadr wrote: 
>>>> Thanks Stephanie. I?m going through these now. May I ask other members of the PC to also go through the documents Stephanie has provided, and give feedback and indicate whether or not they support these as NCSG submissions? 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again. 
>>>> 
>>>> Amr 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apparently some did not receive this yesterday, my apologies. They were sent at 17:33 and 23:18 yesterday. 
>>>>> Steph 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <NCSG Comments on the 2015 GNSO Review.docx><gnso-review-draft-input-template-02jun15-en.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list 
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list 
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg