Thank you.  Relative to the Summary of Ideas related to the IO, I would like to repeat my suggestion for discussion of possible changes to the IO system:

 

1.       Rather than one IO who has to justify a  large annual salary, I would suggest that there be a “Standing Panel on Independent Objections” (like the IRP panel) which makes an initial determination as to the need for an Independent  Objection after receipt of public comment re same, that

 

2.       There would be a qualified “pool” of possible IOs to represent either the Limited Public Interest or the Community that is not represented for any Independent Objection that is moving forward based on the Standing Panel vote.  Assignments could rotate in this qualified “pool”  - e.g. in reverse alphabetical order, and that

 

3.       No IO from the pool could maintain the Objection for the Community if successfully challenged on conflict of interest grounds first – challenge to be determined by a vote of the Standing Panel on Independent Objections BEFORE the Objection proceeds.

 

Compensation for the above persons would be at a fixed rate, either hourly or flat fee.

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, August 29, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda.

 

1.Welcome & Review of Agenda

2. Updates to SOI

3. Plenary Update

4. Independent Objector – Unanswered Questions

5. CC2 – Objections – Q 3.1.7 – 3.1.11 (see attached)

6. AOB

 

Hope you have all had a good weekend and I look forward to talking to you on Tuesday.

 

Best,

Karen

 

____________________________

Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP

Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager

Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day@sas.com

SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA

www.sas.com