[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"
It is the fairest possible approach for working groups.
Thank you Javier, Brett and David.
Elisabeth
> From owner-wg-d@dnso.org Fri Sep 3 18:56 MET 1999
> Subject: Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 99 12:55:49 -0400
> From: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
> To: "Working Group D" <wg-d@dnso.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
>
> Javier wrote:
>
> >(v) Ask the working group to prepare -as the output of the WG- a report
> >with all the different views that have been presented in the discussions.
> >It is not the output that we would have desired, but it does not look like
> >we can go any further.
>
> Another good option. What would you think about requiring that each
> report contain the following elements?
>
> (a) a detailed overview of the proposal;
>
> (b) a full analysis of who and what systems
> might be impacted by the proposal;
>
> (c) the specific steps that would be necessary
> to take to implement the proposal;
>
> (d) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing
> the proposal and how they would be be borne;
>
> (e) a statement of which stakeholders have
> been consulted about the proposal and what
> support the proposal has in the various
> stakeholder communities.
>
> (These come from the list suggested in an earlier post by a WG-D member,
> see:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00158.html)
>
> Such a proposal might also have a place for "rebuttals," so that once
> each group had read the others' reports, they could have time to draft a
> short reply.
>
> It might then be helpful to publish the report for a public comment. You
> might even allow each group to revise (hopefully, compromise) their
> reports prior to submitting a final output of the WG to the NC.
>
> I encourage others to join this thread, as we need to have something
> specific to send to the NC by the middle of next week.
>
> -- Bret
>
>
>
>