Some have described Brennan's approach to analyzing the two wings of the minimum contacts test (the purposeful availment prong and the reasonableness prong) as a "sliding-scale" approach, wherein a greater showing for one prong of the test can make up for a lesser showing for the other prong. Does such an approach make sense? Is it consistent with the Court's original articulation of the doctrine in International Shoe or with the doctrine as articulated in World-Wide Volkswagen