RE: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for your review

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

Thanks to all.  The ToR is final.  Now let's get to work.  If there are no 
objections, the plan on Monday will be to go through the implementation process 
in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4 to identify where people have 
concerns and then try to find ways to make improvements in those areas.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Frank March
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:03 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of Reference for
> your review
> 
> 
> I am happy to agree to this suggestion that we finalise the TOR as they
> stand
> 
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Digital Development
> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Friday, 27 August 2010 2:00 a.m.
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Revised draft Charter Terms of
> > Reference for your review
> >
> >
> > May I suggest that, considering the overall support we have
> > for the current version of the ToR with Avri's and my edits,
> > the co-chairs call time on this and declare the ToR final so
> > that we move on?
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> > Le 26 août 2010 à 14:48, Alan Greenberg a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > I agree. I actually think that the word "preliminary" was
> > the right word. This is a tough problem that has been
> > discussed for several years. Perhaps we will come up with an
> > inspired solution to it in next three weeks (which is when
> > September 13th is). Or not. If we have some indication of a
> > direction that will work, we will need to tell the Board.
> > Setting tight constraints is an effective mechanism to get
> > people to produce, but it is not magic and cannot be
> > guaranteed to work - VI is the proof if we needed one. So we
> > need to keep our options flexible.
> > >
> > > Based on experiences in other groups, if we wanted a final
> > report for the 13th, we should really have a draft already to
> > allow for the inevitable discussions over both major and
> > detailed wording. But we have not yet even started the
> > substantive discussion.
> > >
> > > So let's agree to this middle ground and get to the real work.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > >
> > > At 26/08/2010 07:31 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:
> > >
> > >> Let's go with the current draft that includes Stephane's
> > deletion and
> > >> Avri's addition and move on to the substance.  Thanks.  Jon
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local
> government services
> 
> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files
> transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the
> intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
> responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you
> have received this message in error and that any use is strictly
> prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any
> attachment from your computer.