In regard to this:
"As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track."

While recognizing that the structure proposed by the co-chairs will have the final decisions on Geo name recommendations made by the full PDP WG, and fully understanding the internal ICANN political dynamics surrounding this issue, I nonetheless believe we should have some internal discussion within Council, with appropriate staff input, on whether this proposed CCWG within  a PDP structure is consistent with applicable GNSO rules regarding the operation of PDP WGs. I think we all need to be clear about whether or not a precedent is being set that dilutes GNSO primacy on gTLD policy matters. 

Thanks for your consideration of this comment. 

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

Twitter: @VLawDC

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

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 2, 2017, at 11:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on any recommendations proposed by the Work Track.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council