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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Great =>  I'm also happy with the proposed Agenda Item / Purpose of call fro
Monday...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 27 August 2010 08:11, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>