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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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