Hello Jorge,
As to the comment regarding the need to include the specific rationale followed by the GNSO in its final report of November 2013, I feel we absolutely need to have a summary of it in the “problem statement”.
Otherwise it is difficult to understand the logic and motivations of the GNSO decision of 2013 regarding the different treatment of scope 1 and scope 2 identifiers. Hence, I would like to insist that this summary is included, in order to allow for a full understanding of the GNSO decisions at that time. A footnote with pointers to the specific text in the final report would also be needed, in order to being able to track the source where the full rationale is included.
I agree that it important to understand this rationale. The staff have reviewed the report and couldn’t easily find a clear rationale to place in the problem statement. If we get something from the GNSO people today we can update the problem statement today, otherwise it will be a good question for the GNSO delegation to answer during the session tomorrow. With the problem statement we have been careful to refer to previous documents on the matter rather than create new material. Where possible we have used the same language from the GAC and GNSO documents. As the issue has evolved over quite a considerable period of time some of the terminology used hasn’t been consistent but the staff have done their best. Regards, Bruce Tonkin