Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Summary and Action Items: WGT Conf Call (26 March 2009)

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also think that Thomas¹ approach is a reasonable one.

Konstantinos


On 29/03/2009 22:43, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Indeed what Thomas has shared below seems to be a good way forward, and
> one that uses established practice by a recognised peak body...
> 
> CLO
> 
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> >
>> > The way the W3C process deals with this is twofold:
>> >
>> > 1. There is chair discretion in whether or not an issue is re-opened,
>> > *if* there is new information.
>> >
>> > 2. Participants can demand the record of the meeting to show that a
>> > previously-closed issue is being reopened.
>> >
>> > There is a preferende to *not* reopen issues, but when needed, it can
>> > be done.  I'd suggest a somewhat similar approach here.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > --
>> > Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@xxxxxx>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 28 Mar 2009, at 22:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:19 +0000, Caroline Greer wrote:
>>>> >>> and agree to not re-open previously closed issues.
>>> >>
>>> >> hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On this I suggest a bit of complexity.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anyone, especially someone new to the effort, should be able to re-open
>>> >> an 'closed issue' if they have new information on that issue or a
>>> >> perspective that was not taken into account previously.
>>> >>
>>> >> One of the things I think is importnat in a working group is that all
>>> >> points of view are:
>>> >> - heard
>>> >> - understood
>>> >> - considered
>>> >>
>>> >> and then have a chance to contribute a separate statement in the
>>> >> appendix of a document.
>>> >>
>>> >> To disallow someone to bring up a new aspect to an issue that has
>>> >> already been discussed also means that the discussion has to wait until
>>> >> the public comment period.  Doing this may end up negating much of the
>>> >> work already done.
>>> >>
>>> >> It will be clear in most cases when someone is just rehashing and the
>>> >> chair can call the discussion at that point.  and of course someone who
>>> >> did this constantly, i.e. say 'i have a new fact or perspective and thus
>>> >> need to go back,' would then be a problem of another sort.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would recommend that someone who comes in late with a viewpoint they
>>> >> don't consider as having gotten a hearing should write it up and submit
>>> >> it to the list.  at that point, people can decide if it is new.
>>> >>
>>> >> a.
>>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
> 

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx