RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

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

I think I agree with Alan because the DT could more readily analyze the public 
comments and suggest modifications to the DT recommendations.  Moreover, the DT 
work could  be done concurrently with the formation of the PDP WG.  I am open 
to further discussion on this.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:20 PM
To: Brian Peck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

My inclination is to disagree on the last point. Sub-group A is likely to be 
superset of the DT (perhaps a large one) and I think the original DT should do 
the analysis and comments of the PC input (along with any changes to the 
recommendations of needed).

Alan

At 26/10/2012 06:13 PM, Brian Peck wrote:


Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the IGO-INGO PDP, 
Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be suspended.  It is expected that 
the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, after the close of the public comment 
period, will be addressed by sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above.