Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on Issue 5

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 September 2010 05:01, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Evan Leibovitch
>
>    At the same time, there is an intent (that I'd thought had achieved
> consensus) that the Board could contract experts to provide some outside
> expertise on issues that it could choose to accept or reject on its own.
>
>
>
> There is indeed consent on that. But if it expert advice it’s not a DRSP
> and it doesn’t make decisions or recommendations that need to be
> “overturned” or “upheld”
>
>
> To me there's a big conceptual gap between an expert advisory panel and a
> DSRP, but everyone seems hellbent on using the term here because it's used
> elsewhere, even though the purpose of the expert review is different from
> the actual DSRP functions described elsewhere in the DAG. But I digress...
>
>
>
> That is not a digression, that is the core of the issue
>

The digression, I'd thought, was what to call it. The core issue is the
function, and the secondary issue is who would be best to provide the
function.

But you're right. Continuing to call it a DSRP is -- as I expected --
tainting the discussion of function because of the attempt to shoehorn an
advisory role into the description "Dispute resolution". Usually one comes
up first with the function, then the name and the procedure to determine who
performs the function. Right now we have it all backwards, having chosen a
name (DSRP) and who would do it (ICC) before achieving closure on function.

Chuck, I really would suggest changing the name, or at least leaving it as a
TBD until after the function has clear consensus. The task being envisioned
here is substantially different from the DSRP being used in other venues,
and keeping the name here just because it's familiar is at best confusing
and at worst misleading.

- Evan