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

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

Margie,

I had two concerns: 1) timing & 2) ability of the new WG to respond quickly in 
responding to the public comment period.  Regarding timing, if the new WG is 
formed and ready to go by the end of the reply period, that would likely 
resolve most of my concerns in that regard.  But even if that is the case, if 
there are lots of new participants in the new WG, they will need to be brought 
up to speed so it might take longer to respond to the public comments; maybe 
that would be okay but I am not sure.  In my opinion, whatever works best for 
minimizing the total time needed to get the PDP work done as quick as possible 
is the best way to go.

Chuck

From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:18 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Re: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP

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.

We envision that the two sub-teams work in parallel, and would not be mutually 
exclusive.  Does this address your & Alan's concerns?

All the best,
Margie
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Alan Greenberg; Brian Peck; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail; Marika Konings; iocRC DT
Subject: 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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:20 PM
To: Brian Peck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.