Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] confusing thing in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (Version 5 February 2010)

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.  By copy of this email, I am asking Marika to take note of 
these issues.  We can look at these issues when we consider the public comments.

J. Scott
 j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - Yahoo! 
Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx






________________________________
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To: Working Group <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 8:38:14 AM
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] confusing thing in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
(Version 5 February 2010)


hi,

Because I am recommending that a new PDP WG use this, I was reading it again.  
I know I should have done this last week.  

I think I found a possible issue:

on page 14/15 on appeals:

2. If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). 
The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the liaison(s) 
supports the Chair's position, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) 
must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees 
with the Chair, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) and chair must 
both explain their reasoning in the response.

If the Liaison agree with the chair it escalates - i.e send it up the food 
chain to the CO - makes sense
If the Liaison doesn't, why is it also sent to the CO in this case?  I would 
think that in this case, unless the chair wanted to appeal the Liaison's 
decision, it would go back to the WG as the chair having been overruled.

(i know i can write this up in a comment and will do so with apologies for 
having neglected to notice before, but maybe we had a reason I forgot about.)


And while I am at in.  In 3.7 the appeals process, was there a reason we 
skipped over the Liaison in this case and went straight to the chair of the CO?

thanks and apologies.

BTW, one reason i recommend the WG use these guidelines, other then I think 
they are good, is that it seems like a useful alpha test of the doc.  I know I 
read it differently once i was thinking in terms of real live group i plan to 
participate in using them.

a.