I am serenely resigned to all this.  But, your statement "...in the paper world...the AOR signs the application and sends it" is not precisely true in every hamlet.  There are variations on this theme.

CH

At 09:36 AM 4/4/2006, you wrote:
>Charlie, what is the dilemma here?  This procedure, in so far as the
>SO is concerned, is how things are done now in paper world.  The
>authorized official signs the application and sends it.  In the G.g
>model, the the authorized AOR submits the application. This is equal
>to a signature on a paper application.   The NIH problem was the
>second "signature."
>
>The procedure you note is one discussed at the last NIH Commons
>Working Group meeting.  The first proposal was for no Commons
>verifications by either SO or PI.  There was some worry that what
>arrived at the Commons might not be exactly what was sent.  Thus the
>option for a negative approval was considered.  If PI does nothing,
>then the application goes to review.  SO does nothing more.  However,
>the PI could take a look, and if not satisfied with the outcome,
>could reject, correct and have the AOR resubmit.  I assume the SO
>could still look at the status of the e-application to confirm its
>arrival at the Commons. Another consideration is when does the "clock
>start ticking."  Does the PI have 2 days after the application has
>taken the happy path -- gotten into the image stage -- or when the
>deadline passes.
>
>This new procedure would not allow a direct submission by the PI, if
>an institution wanted to do that, because there would be no SO
>approval at the Commons end.  Thus, there should now be no demand by
>PI's for AOR status.
>
>The rumored process seems like a good one, in line with other
>agencies.  I would hope for a message from Commons to SO that the
>application has arrived so the SO could have a look, if desired.
>
>
>Bob Beattie
>University of Michigan/ Grants.gov Liaison
>xxxxxx@umich.edu   936-1283
>Learn more about Grants.gov @ UMICH
>http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/
>
>
>
>On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:37 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote:
>
>I've been told that NIH will issue new guidelines saying that the
>mandatory verification step at the eRA commons will no longer be
>necessary.  Instead, the PI will be responsible for checking that the
>application is OK within two days.  If changes need to be
>made the PI will hit "Reject" and will have the opportunity to
>change it.  If not eRA commons will send grant (automatically?) to
>review.
>
>Can anyone confirm?
>
>I know that many of you are cheering.  But for some of us, this
>presents a
>dilemma.  I am particularly eager to know whether this reject/failsafe
>mechanism might allow the SO to be involved.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================
>
>
>======================================================================
>Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================