RE: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6 Implementation Discussion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

The Board has not taken any action on this as far as I am aware.  Some
in the GNSO may request that we wait for the Board to give direction.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:46 PM
> To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Initial Draft ToR for Recommendation 6
> Implementation Discussion
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 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.