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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me weigh in on this discussion, especially because I likely will not be 
able to participate in this weeks call.

First of all, I am comfortable with whatever a majority of the DT decides, with 
'[whenever possible]' or without it but if we leave it I definitely recommend 
that the brackets be used.  Because the Council will have to deliberate on our 
recommendations further, there will be additional opportunity to deal with this 
with more minds involved, so it is not essential that we reach final resolution 
now.

At the same time, I lean toward the goal of having one charter.  If there are 
elements in the charter where the various SOs and ACs cannot agree, those can 
be dealt with accordingly.  Here are some possible ways that could happen: 1) 
let each SO and/or AC make independent recommendations on those elements, 
separate from the CWG work; 2) ask each SO and/or AC to make independent 
recommendations to the CWG with the expectation that the CWG would incorporate 
them into the CWG final report; 3) recognize that there may not be community 
consensus on those elements.  I am sure there are many other ways that such a 
situation could be resolved.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:03 PM
To: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- 
"wherever possible"?

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<mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cel: (51)8126-0916    Geral: (51)3233-3551
www.powerself.com.br<http://www.powerself.com.br/>

NOVIDADES POWERSELF
* Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para 
IPhone:<http://www.powerself.com.br/site/lojavirtual.produtos.php?idprodtipo=3>
    
http://www.powerself.com.br/PowerTasks/<http://www.powerself.com.br/PowerTasks>

De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto: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.)