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

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can't be on the call (another at the same time), but I'd share the
preference to remove "whenever possible."

--Wendy

On 12/20/2011 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 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.)
> 
> 

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/