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

[Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Council Colleagues,


I'd like to put the Council's reply to the Board on the IGO/INGO small group on 
our list of informal discussion topics for this evening just to make sure this 
response doesn't fall off our radar.


Concerns were raised in our working session about the need to strike the right 
tone.


Two questions - 1) do we have interested councillors to further finesse the 
language? and 2) how is our reply impacted by our upcoming meeting with the 
board? Ie, do we wait until after our meeting with the Board to reply, and do 
we want to strategically discuss this evening our tone for dealing with this 
face to face when we meet with the Board?

Best wishes,


Heather


________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:32:15 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