RES: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

["Jaime Wagner - CGI" <jaime@xxxxxx>]

Milton,

Either I misinterpreted due to my poor English or there's a Catch 22 in your
reasoning.

You start saying that GAC has problems finding consensus and that we need to
move quickly.

You finish stating that we must try to come up with something "acceptable to
all involved".

Well, GAC is in involved. So we are doomed to failure. 

What if this something is not acceptable to all? Will we still move quickly?
If not consensus, than majority in the Board decides. That's it.


Jaime Wagner

-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de
Milton L Mueller
Enviada em: domingo, 5 de setembro de 2010 11:07
Para: Frank March
Cc: soac-mapo
Assunto: RE: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...


This is a very useful and clarifying description of the GAC's situation,
Frank. 
Although I am familiar enough with governmental and intergovernmental
processes to already know most of what you state, I think it's good and
important to be apprised of this in such a direct and clear way.  

In particular, this line is key:

> -----Original Message-----
> It may well be that trying to find a Rec6WG
> consensus on a report by the end of next week that includes full GAC
> support is mission impossible. That does not mean that it should not be
> attempted, nor does it mean that the report would be less significant.
> What it does mean is that GAC members taking part in the discussions
> cannot guarantee that the GAC will not come back later with criticisms
> of either a Rec6WFG or Board position on MAPO.

My sentiments exactly, and really the only realistic way to go about this.

I think the problem here comes _not_ from the inevitable difficulties that
GAC will have finding a consensus or from the inevitable criticisms that
might be made by individual members or groups of GAC members, but from our
_expectations_ regarding what the existence of those criticisms mean. 

The point is, this group has to develop a proposal, quickly, and the Board
has to act on it with a decision and implementation, quickly. It is
inevitable under those circumstances that various people from different
stakeholder groups will be not entirely happy with the outcome. What we must
do is abandon the idea that any one stakeholder group, including governments
or any one government, has some kind of veto power over the outcome. Going
back to my exchange with Stuart Lawley, if even the GAC is not of one mind,
or requires long and convoluted processes to determine what its members can
support, then it's absurd for this group to base its outcomes on what it
thinks will or will not be acceptable to "the GAC." We have to try to
propose something that as acceptable as possible to all of us involved.
That's the best we can do. 

--MM