Re: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FOR REVIEW: Revised Draft Principles -- "wherever possible"?
Well, I said I would stop but one further comment. We seem to now be violently agreeing with each other. I have NO problem with insisting that the charter starting a CWG be a single one. My only suggestion was that we not forbid less orthodox changes later in its life which might become necessary. Alan At 20/12/2011 02:40 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote: 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 didnt 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 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cel: (51)8126-0916 Geral: (51)3233-3551 <http://www.powerself.com.br/>www.powerself.com.br NOVIDADES POWERSELF* <http://www.powerself.com.br/site/lojavirtual.produtos.php?idprodtipo=3>Power Tasks: Gerenciador de tarefas para IPhone:
|