Re: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

ah…  

i think i understand that situation.  let's say that the Mikey Faction and the 
Jaime Faction disagree over an aspect of the charter -- and, because we're 
evenly matched we bring the discussion to a no-consensus destination (a 
perfectly valid outcome in consensus decision making btw).  

i offer these situations;

-- we're deadlocked over whether the work should be done at all

-- we're deadlocked over a major component of the work

-- we're deadlocked over a minor component

i think our options could include:

-- not forming the CC working group at all

-- forming a CC working group that excludes the faction that does not agree 

-- forming two CC working groups with different charters

-- forming a CC working group with one or more *minor* charter issues that have 
to be resolved by the working group

but in all cases i'd really like to see each working group only have one 
charter -- it's like service-providers having only one statement-of-work or 
arrangement letter.  

how does that work for you?

thanks for that really thoughtful comment,

mikey


On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:

> Mike,
>  
> 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 
> possible”:
>  
> 1)      One is a practical consideration: leave room for reality since it 
> already happened.
> 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 harms and frictions superseded the benefits?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
> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cel: (51)8126-0916    Geral: (51)3233-3551 
> www.powerself.com.br
>  
> NOVIDADES POWERSELF
> * Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para IPhone:
>     http://www.powerself.com.br/PowerTasks/
>  
> 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
> Cc: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Assunto: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever 
> possible"?
>  
> thanks Julie,
>  
> 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 
> the other?  
>  
>             - hand the unresolved dispute to the co-chairs and let *them* 
> resolve it?
>  
> 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… 
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
>  
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 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 
> wiki at:  
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/5.+Background+Documents.
>    
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> 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 
> 2011.pdf>
>  
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone      651-647-6109  
> fax                          866-280-2356  
> web         http://www.haven2.com
> handle     OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> etc.)
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)