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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Once we get through the existing list of threads, please bring this up
as an add-on.  I believe it is too late to add it to the poll or do a
separate poll.  Besides, responses to the poll were asked to be
submitted by 17:00 UTC, which is coming up in a few hours.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:49 AM
> To: Evan Leibovitch; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Please participate - another CWG Rec 6
> Poll on Issue 5
> 
> 
> 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
>