At 18/01/2012 06:33 AM, William Drake wrote:
Here I agree with Evan, which is why I, Avri and I think other NCUCers raised this in Council. If the chartering groups' concerns completely align and make a single charter possible, great. Conversely, if they are fundamentally incompatible, a CCWG is unlikely to be productive. But in between these poles there's a lot of space, so one would hope some differences of emphasis don't by default mean that each should just retreats into its silo to do its own thing. To me, a CCWG is in the first instance a platform for interspecies dialogue on issues requiring drill down reflection and recommendationsjoint ones if possible, but if not, ok. Consider the issue-set in a holistic manner, and if one group preferences issues a, c and e while the other preferences b, d and f, and/or comes to different conclusions/recs on the same points, fine. Why shouldn't the chartering (and as needed, rechartering) process allow for some variability as long as the groups are engaging in a coherent dialogue on matters of common concern? Nor should the internal dynamics of one group hold back the progress of another in tackling the matters it cares about. As the JAS experience ultimately demonstrated after the rechartering, a bit of variability can allow for innovation and help move things along (although obviously it can also lead to contestation, which ought to be manageable through better communication and coordination).
A priori I'd think it preferable for the principles to call for a single joint charter "where possible" or some such weasel formulation in order to give SO/ACs more latitude in working out the model to be followed in each case, and perhaps to offer some general guidelines for how things should be conducted absent one. But I suspect a motion amendment to that effect would go down in flames. In any event, however NCSG votes, hopefully a mutually satisfactory community-wide solution can be worked out later (if in fact one thinks a fixed framework is needed).
No disagreement from me in this respect. I fought hard for a "where possible/practical" or "generally" phrase to be added to the one-charter issue. I did not win that one in the DT. I do suspect that it is an edge case which particularly applies when the desires are generally compatible, but one groups wants a superset of issues addressed (so I guess my reference to the "far reaches of my imagination" was overkill ;-) ). However, since this is just the GNSO stake in the ground, if ALAC or others feel the bit of wriggle-room is desired, hopefully it can be put back in when that level of discussion happens. Clearly it would be a LOT better if the GNSO approves principals that do have the flexibility. Alan