RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?
- To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Julie Hedlund'" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?
- From: "Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:18:22 -0200
I agree with your considerations in general and I also agree that they
reflect the ideal requirements.
Nevertheless, I keep my two concerns to open a window with the "whenever
1) One is a practical consideration: leave room for reality since it
I didn't participate in the JAS CWG and I am not aware of the minutiae of
the process and the reasons behind the need for two charters.
I wonder (and this is not as a figure of speech, but a request for
information) if the group would be formed or would continue its work if we
already had a requirement for a unique consensus charter among all SOs and
ACs involved. What would be better: a) the group follow its work with two
charters and all the burdens and "quid pro quos" that happened; or b) halt
until a common charter would be discussed. Would the time constraints be
met? Has something of value emerged from the work as it has been done? Or
the harms and frictions superseded the benefits?
2) The other is a matter of principle: can we impose a consensus over
goals to something that can work as a mechanism to foster understanding when
there is no consensus among the parties?
Jaime B. Wagner
Cel: (51)8126-0916 Geral: (51)3233-3551
Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para IPhone:
De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em
nome de Mike O'Connor
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2011 11:33
Para: Julie Hedlund
Assunto: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles --
i really want to continue the discussion about 2.a,ii where we leave the
[wherever possible] clause in. here's the sentence, just to make the thread
easier to follow;
All participating SOs/ACs should approve a single, joint Charter [whenever
possible] that defines the rules and procedures for the CWG.
as your customer, i want to understand the circumstances where a working
group would be handed *more than one* charter to operate under. that seems
really weird to me. i'd also really like to understand how we think the
working group is going to operate if it has more than one charter.
- alternating charters by week?
- half the working group works under one, the other half under
- hand the unresolved dispute to the co-chairs and let *them*
as an old geezer, it's always fun to see new things but i have to admit that
i've never heard of a plane going to two destinations at the same time -- or
leaving the destination-dispute up to the pilots to decide after the plane
has taken off. i think the airline's customers would get restive.
On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Attached in Word and PDF are the revised Draft Principles based on the
changes agreed to on today's call. Note that the redline reflects new
additions on the call. Redlining was removed where edits from the list and
the meeting on 22 November have been accepted. This also is posted to the
Note: As discussed the rationale section is included, but it was agreed that
it would not be included in the version sent to the Council. However,
further edits to the rationale text are encouraged as these may be useful to
provide during Council discussions.
Our next call is scheduled for Tuesday, 20 December at UTC/1200 PST/1500
EST/2000 London/2100 CET. A reminder will be send prior to the call.
Attendees: Jonathan Robinson (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Alan Greenberg, Mikey
O'Conner, Wendy Seltzer, Jaime Wagner; Staff: Julie Hedlund, Liz Gasster,
and Nathalie Peregrine
<Draft Principles for CWGs 13 Dec 2011.doc><Draft Principles for CWGs 13 Dec
- - - - - - - - -
web <http://www.haven2.com> http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,