RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] viability of the charter for this group

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now that I have read the exact motions that were passed in addition to the 
previously posted communication, I am not as concerned as when I first heard of 
the new gTLD Committee actions.  In my first reaction, the actions seemed to 
undermine the GNSO policy efforts and possibly the GNSO itself, but I think 
that was on overreaction.  It is true that that the actions were premature at 
least in the case of the IOC/RC but maybe not regarding the IGOs because it is 
not clear that the WG would have dealt with these quickly enough to recommend a 
temporary moratorium.

Personally, I do not see anything in the motions that changes the tasks of our 
working group. And as I have said before, the fact that temporary reservations 
have been put in place if needed should not predispose any recommendations that 
we decide to make.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:59 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] viability of the charter for this group
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Now that the Board has trumped the actions of this group with a
> resolution (2012.11.26.NG03) that I consider, at best, premature and at
> worst a slap in the face to all who work on PDPs, I wonder, how does
> this affect our charter and work program?  The reason I beleive this is
> such a slap as it took a different approach with regard to IOC/RC that
> it did with IGOs (2012.11.26.NG01,2)
> 
> For example, can we still recommend that one or both of those who have
> been elevated beyond all others and have been granted special
> protections, can have those protections removed by consensus of this
> PDP?
> 
> avri
>