[NCUC-EC] Current Draft Response to Westlake Draft Report

[PeterGreen]

Hi Bill, Hi Guys,
For the final version, COUNT ME IN!
Peter
Subject: Current Draft Response to Westlake Draft Report
From: william.drake at uzh.ch
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:23:19 +0100
CC: mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com; mueller at syr.edu; avri at acm.org; aelsadr at egyptig.org; mariliamaciel at gmail.com; seekcommunications at hotmail.com; mshears at cdt.org; robin at ipjustice.org; caribe at entropia.blog.br; stefania.milan at eui.eu; wsaqaf at gmail.com; dave at difference.com.au; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; rafik.dammak at gmail.com; ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info; niels at article19.org; kathy at kathykleiman.com; flavio at inf.ufrgs.br; rballeste at stu.edu; ca at cafonso.ca; caffsouza at gmail.com; joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz; bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com; komaitis at isoc.org; stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: turkued at gmail.com

Hi
New subject line to help with mail organization.  So attached please find my suggested edits.  I’d have liked to do more but schedule’s bad today and this needs to move along, why I didn’t want a 12th hour rush.
I approved Milton and Avri’s changes which were primarily copy edits.  I did some bits of reformatting to make it easier to plow through and inserted some bits of substantive text for consideration.  There are a couple outstanding items, flagged with comments.  
I guess it’s not a bad thing that we send a blast of the Westlake work on the day of the meeting.  After all, they did a blast of us without any warning on the day of their meeting in Singapore.  So a Tuesday submission of comments will be no more disrespectful than what we’ve endured.
Bill


On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Edward Morris <turkued at gmail.com> wrote:I'm not going to lose sleep over it, Bill has a tough enough job right now, but for one of the few times since I've know you, Milton,  I think you're dead wrong.
The argument that thee is a perception that the NCUC sees NPOC as a competition for funding and travel support isn't effectively countered by fact alone. The facts are helpful but the fact that there is no competition for funding or travel  support does not mean that the NCUC could not see NPOC as competition for same. This has nothing to do with methodology but rather is about  the construction and refutation of an argument. Asking for proof of perception plus fact is a stronger counter than fact alone.
Not going to matter in the long run and probably a sign I've spent too much of my life in the environs of lawyers and law schools! Thanks of all your help fixing the draft.

ᐧ
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Milton Mueller <mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I think the report's reliance on perceptions - of "some," etc. - has been noted and targeted multiple times up to that point, and so repeating it there seems much weaker than pointing out that it's just completely inaccurate. The "perception" argument raises doubts, only. The equal travel slots fact kills it dead.  

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Edward Morris <turkued at gmail.com> wrote:













One thing I noticed is that this last version did not include a comment made by Amr that everyone supported, namely including in response to the claim that we
 were competing with them for travel slots Bill’s factual response that each constituency is guaranteed the same number of travel slots. I included this and deleted the prior stuff, which was much weaker.









 Disagree. Perhaps a combination would be stronger.



Look at the statement we are responding to: it s about a perception, not about a fact. I'd suggest between 'Not true' and 'There', in the revised document we put:



-



All NCUC lists and discussion forums are open, archived and available for public inspection. Is there any evidence on list to support this alleged perception?



In fact, there... (the new input).



-



This would tend to refute the 'perception' about what NCUC members think by both addressing the perception issue and adding factual support.






Ed










 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20150303/eedf2aba/attachment.html>