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