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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I was confused so perhaps others are too.

I think there are two main options at play here.  In the first option, the 
service provider analyzes the objection and provides a written report of this 
analysis to the Board, along with an 'approve' or 'reject' recommendation.    
The Board then makes a decision.      (This option is what's in the DAG now).

In the second option the service provider analyzes the objection and provides a 
written report on this analysis to the Board (without any recommendation to 
approve or reject).   The Board then makes a decision.

The Board makes the decision in both cases,  as they are required to do for any 
matter put before them, so in both cases the service provider is an 'advisor'.  
The difference is whether or not the service provider makes an explicit 
recommendation.

Maybe I was the only one confused - but if not -- that's the essential 
difference.

RT



On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:49 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> 
> Given the fact that we have consensus (?) on the advisory nature of any such 
> panel, I would like to recommend that the term 'DRSP" is changed to 'Advisory 
> Panel" (AP).
> 
> Margie is it too late to incorporate this in our discussion?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 13/09/2010 14:39, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>