[comments-transfer] Comments on the Transfers Final Report

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

When reading a final report issued by a policy-development task force one 
expects to see the following:

1.  the set of procedural steps taken to arrive at the proposed policy 
(demonstrating that the process was both understandable and predictable to 
all)
2.  the tally of all issues raised relevant to the topic at hand
3.  the description of all responsible points of view pertaining to these 
issues
4.  the commentary, as appropriate, from other expert panels and constituent 
bodies
5.  the record of all competing policy proposals examined, discussed and 
evaluated
6.  the record demonstrating the emergence of consensus on one particular 
policy proposal
7.  the proposed policy 
8.  the record demonstrating outreach to parties potentially affected by the 
proposed policy
9.  the chronicle of positions taken in favor or opposition to the proposed 
policy 
10. the identities of those in favor of, or opposed to, the proposed policy
11. the pro and con arguments relating to the various positions 
12. the detailed Minority reports - a fair statement of points in opposition 
and a substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition
13. the rationale for the final recommendations
14. the supporting arguments - a summary of the best arguments for adoption 
of the policy
15. the demonstration that opposition to the proposed policy was either 
unreasonable or irrational
16. the general impact analysis - a full analysis of who might be impacted 
and in what ways
17. the Constituency impact review - a summary and analysis of evidence 
provided by DNSO constituencies
18. the Risk/Cost analysis - an analysis of all of the risks and costs of the 
proposed policy

Upon reviewing the final report of this Transfers Task Force however, one 
can't escape arriving at the conclusion that a great many significant 
portions of the above are glaringly missing, that other portions of the 
report are rendered in minimal lip-service form, and that overall these 
serious deficiencies grossly compromise the integrity of what purports to be 
a report demonstrating consensus.