RE: Plenary Minutes

In looking back over the Plenary minutes, I see another area for
clarification.  I don't think any vote item is needed, but this
illustrates that we'll need to be clear in wording while writing the
PSWG report.

The discussion of Future of PSWG states that PSWG's ongoing Electronic
Commerce issues would be addressed in the Rule 22 subcommittee that is
currently addressing DASR and account maintenance issues.  Our decision
instead was simply that Electronic Commerce would be a committee within
an ongoing process that is now the Rule 22 working group, and we
acknowledged that this is like the current DASR and account maintenance
efforts.  However, the DASR and account maintenance efforts are
temporary tasks within the Customer Data Transactions (CDT) committee,
which itself is an interim structure within Rule 22.  CDT may well take
on a longer life, but even the Rule 22 group currently has a sunset
date.  In other words, we are recommending an ongoing structure, and
shouldn't get too specific in stating temporary details.

---
Jim Price, ORA, jep@cpuc.ca.gov

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stacey, Kirsten [SMTP:KSM8@pge.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 29, 1998 2:51 PM
> To:	'pswg@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov'; 'pswgweb@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov'
> Subject:	Plenary Minutes
> 
> Attached are the Plenary minutes from the 6/25 meeting. 
> 
> I have been thinking about the discussion Thursday morning. I would
> propose
> that the Subgroup Chairs write up a summary of the issue and how their
> group
> arrived at the conclusion that became the final recommendation. The
> section
> of minority reports is for people who disagree with the conclusion.
> Parties
> who are supporting the PSWG recommendation can do that in their
> comments. We
> have set aside time on Monday's meeting for further discussion on this
> issue.
> 
>  In the meantime, I would be interested to hear comments over the
> exploder
> on how we should proceed.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Kirsten Stacey
> 
>  <<PL6_25MI.DOC>>  << File: PL6_25MI.DOC >> 
.