[council] RE: Draft Response to Board - GNSO Review of IGO/INGO "Small Group" Proposal

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings to all from DOH, en route to HYD.

In regard to the CRP WG, we actually devoted two sessions to reviewing the 
relevant portions of the IGO proposal. While we do not follow their suggested 
path we believe we recommend broader and more balanced protections.

See many of you soon.


Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of 
James M. Bladel [jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:32 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Draft Response to Board - GNSO Review of IGO/INGO "Small 
Group" Proposal

Council Colleagues –

Attached, please find a draft letter developed by a subteam of Councilors in 
response to the Board’s letter on IGO Acronyms, and the accompanying “small 
group” proposal.  I recognize that many of you are already en route to 
Hyderabad, but hopefully you’ll have a chance to review prior to our meeting on 
7 NOV.

Here are a few highlights:


·         The Council believes that elements of the “small group” proposal 
relating to IGO Acronyms were previously and effectively considered in the PDP 
that was adopted in 2013.

·         The Council has no current plans to reconsider its standing 
recommendations to the Board.

·         While the Council does have a procedure for amending policy 
recommendations in extraordinary circumstances, this process could have 
significant implications for future PDPs.

o    Additionally, any review of previous recommendations is complicated by the 
nearly 3 year delay since this PDP was adopted.

·         Those elements that are within scope for the current Curative Rights 
PDP Working Group have been referred to that WG, which reviewed them during its 
call on 13 OCT.


Finally, we have included a staff-prepared comparison table, highlighting the 
differences between the PDP, the proposal, and GAC advice, including references 
to relevant areas of the original PDP Final Report.

I hope that these materials will help inform our discussion on 7 NOV, and our 
response to the Board on this topic.

Safe travels, and see you in Hyderabad!


Thank you--
J.

James Bladel