RE: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I spoke in support of a similar approach within Working Group C.  It "feels"
like our only option to gather together the work that has been done within
the group, and to broaden the participation of those who belong, but haven't
yet found a way to participate, for whatever reason.

Also, there will be then something which could be posted for comment from
other working groups. 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 6:51 PM
To: 'Bret A. Fausett'; 'Working Group D'
Subject: RE: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"


I think this sounds like a good approach. Would likewise be interested in
hearing from others.

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Bret
A.
Fausett
Sent:	Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:12 PM
To:	Working Group D
Subject:	Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

While we have two posts suggesting that WG-C should cease work until this
WG can complete its report, I read a majority of the posts suggesting
that WG-C should continue working, though trying something new to move
its work ahead.

As for what the "something new" should be, a number of posts have
suggested asking the members of WG-C to summarize their work into written
position statements, both as a means to share the positions with the
larger Internet community and as an exercise to focus the group's
thinking.

As to what should become of these statements, there seems to be some
consensus that there will be a public comment period, etc. and perhaps
the opportunity to revise or compromise the statements. There has also
been a suggestion that these position statements may actually represent
the final work product of WG-C.

I would suggest that we report to the NC that WG-C continue its work and
encourage its participants to find common alliances and draft as many
positions statements as there are points of view in the WG. I posted a
suggestion as to what these reports should look like, based on David
Johnson's earlier post to this WG, that received some support. I would be
interested to hear if people agree or disagree with that suggestion or
have additions or revisions to it.

While the process of drafting these reports/positions statements is in
the works, we can continue our discussion on what should become of them
and if, when and how they will be published for public comment and
criticism.

Objections? Thoughts?

      -- Bret