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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Margie, I can't speak for Chuck, but here are my thoughts.

At 29/10/2012 03:17 PM, Margie Milam wrote:
> Dear Chuck & Alan,
>
> I am not sure why the PDP and the DT couldn't be blended at this 
> point.    There has been criticism of the work of the drafting team 
> because it was viewed by some as not following the proper 
> process.   Under the flexibility of the new PDP rules,  this PDP 
> could certainly do the work of analyzing the public comment, and 
> developing the response to the Board request for the Council to 
> consider by the deadline.   The issues are the same, so it would 
> seem redundant to have two groups working on this topic simultaneously.
I'm sure any group can do the work, but Council is working under a 
rather tight demand from the Board on what action to take pending the 
completion of a PDP. Putting a new group (which might be a superset, 
subset or some other relation to the DT that requested comments) 
seems rather bizarre - all to save a teleconference or two.
I am sure there are people who believe that the Council and the DT 
have not followed proper process, but short of a full-fledged PDP 
nothing is going to satisfy them, and having a subset of the PDP WG 
do the work is no more "proper" than the DT in my opinion.
All of that is rather moot, since I would think it is a Council 
decision whether to keep the DT and it's task, or meld it into the 
PDP. The PC ends on 09 Nov, and there is a 15 Nov, so perhaps that is 
the place to hold this discussion. Regardless, Council needs to act 
on SOME recommendatiom at either its December or January meeting if 
it is to meet the Board's deadline.
> We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not 
> be mutually exclusive.
As I presumed, but it wasn't clear from the original note.

Alan

>  Does this address your & Alan's concerns?
>
> All the best,
> Margie