Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion
On 20 Aug 2010, at 15:06, Robin Gross wrote: > <Rec6 WG Terms of Reference-RG-edits.doc> I essentially support this formulation with the edits done before me by Milton and Robin, though I do have some questions about other content of the ToR. - i question whether it is possible to find an appropriate solution without revisiting and possibly revising the understanding of policy recommendation 6. I also question to what extent one can separate implementation from policy. We see them as separate because the volunteer group does policy and the paid staff does the implementation. But as anyone who have ever done and implementation of any policy or design knows, it is impossible to do just implementation without making many, sometime minor sometime major, policy interpretations and decisions along the way. Hence the need to review implementation for their faithfulness to the original policy/design. Implementation experience also must be allowed to affect policy. And if the only reasonable implementation of a policy is something that most cannot accept, then perhaps the original recommendation was the problem and should be reconsidered. - The report section needed a statement on the possibility of minority reports. I added one. - The one question that is not answered. who is chartering this group GAC+ALAC+GNSO or the Board? It seems that this ToR is setup to report directly to the Board? Is this the intention. Does the Board need to review or endorse the ToR? Or did they empower the 3 chairs and the group in formation with the ability to approve its own ToR? Also did a few editorials. thanks a. Attachment:
Rec6 WG Terms of Reference-RG-edits+.doc
|