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

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

i'm not arguing against flexibility -- i'm arguing against *launching* a piece 
of work with multiple charters.  that flight from Dakar was not listed on the 
Departures board as "departing for JFK, no Chicago, no Detroit" -- they had a 
single destination and encountered circumstances beyond their control *after* 
they launched.  they still had a single charter -- get passengers as close to 
the stated destination as possible without putting them in harm's way.  a 
single charter, with subsequent changes, but still a single charter.



On Dec 20, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> BTW, Just to follow up on Mikey's analagy, when I flew home from Dakar, I was 
> on a flight that left Madrid and headed for JFK. Unfortunately, this was the 
> day of the freak snowstorm in the US NE, and we spent 4 hours on the ground 
> in Hartford, then headed back to JFK, then diverted to Chicago and ultimately 
> landed in Detroit. Not a flight that anyone would have scheduled (or bought a 
> ticket on), but it was what the circumstances called for and was not 
> forbidden...
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 20/12/2011 01:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> To answer Jaime's question (as a member of the JAS WG and as the person who 
>> had a major role in writing the charters), if we had not had identical 
>> charters at the start, I am not sure what would have happened. To recite 
>> what DID happen:
>> 
>> 1) A charter was proposed (can't remember the detailed origin) and was 
>> amended in a number of ways that ended up being acceptable to all.
>> 2) Due to a editing error, the GNSO approved the WRONG charter which was 
>> missing one clause that had been added during the drafting process (and 
>> agreed upon by all parties).
>> 3) For expediency, the ALAC approved the charter AS ADOPTED by the GNSO.
>> 
>> For the RE-CHARTERING of the WG after initial Board action, 
>> 
>> 1) A new charter was proposed (by the WG membership I believe)
>> 2) The ALAC approved it.
>> 3) The GNSO changed it radically and approved that version resulting in a 
>> situation akin to Mikey's "going in two different directions". Note that 
>> this was a GNSO decision to have two divergent charters at that point.
>> 4) The ALAC re-wrote its version to insure that it was a simple superset of 
>> the GNSO version. This no longer was akin to a plane flying in two 
>> directions, but something that every commercial pilot is very familiar with 
>> - flying from A to B and then going on to C.
>> 
>> The end result may not have been optimal, but then neither is taking a 
>> flight from A to C which stops in B for an hour. But it was a workable and 
>> the WG was willing to accept that some of its work product need only be 
>> presented to the ALAC, and some to both chartering organizations, since 
>> there was NOTHING that caused any conflict or caused the WG Co-Chairs to 
>> have to divide the group or alternate meetings or decide on conflicting 
>> instructions. Ultimately, the GNSO explicitly said that it wanted to see the 
>> entire report and that is what happened.
>> 
>> My preference is that the guidelines we are producing allow some 
>> flexibility. ALLOWING flexible chartering does not mean it will happen. Each 
>> chartering organization will presumably be made up of sentient beings who 
>> will do all in their power to ensure that the WG they charter will be 
>> effective. If the situation in their collective minds warrants a split, why 
>> should we presume to know better than those who will actually be aware of 
>> the specifics at the time? I do note that without any guidelines whatsoever, 
>> we have had a number of joint working groups, and none of them has ever 
>> started off with anything but a single charter.
>> 
>> That being said, as a member of the DT who is not a GNSO SG member, I will 
>> not press this point further.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 16/12/2011 04:18 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.)