Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I think the usefulness of David Johnson's elements depends in part on
*why* the members of WG-C are preparing their position statements.  If
they're doing it so that the WG chairs can assemble those statements as the
WG-C final report, then it makes sense for the folks preparing the
statements to do whatever they can to include the information David
describes.  After all, this will be their last chance, in the WG process,
to provide the rest of the DNSO with that information.

	I understood Bret's message yesterday, though, to suggest the WG-C members
might be preparing position statements more as an intermediate step, to
focus the group's thinking, and to lay the groundwork for more
sophisticated discussion and possible revision and compromise.  Under that
plan, I suspect that imposing an obligation on the folks preparing position
statements to include all of David's requested information, at this stage
of the game,  may be an inappropriate paperwork burden.  There's room, at
this point of the process, for statements that are less formal; as Javier
points out, they too may help move the process along.

	Under either approach, I think David's elements shouldn't be mandatory,
because such a requirement works less well when applied to position
statements that are written and controlled by their individual drafters (as
opposed to consensus reports that ultimately are controlled by the chairs).
 The chairs can encourage the drafters of position statements to satisfy
David's criteria, but they can't as a practical matter, without a terrible
mess, *require* them to do so.  (How many times can a chair return a
position statement to its drafters because, in the chair's view, it
inadequately discusses the "costs and risks" of the proposal?  And is it
really appropriate for him or her to do so?)

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 02:07 AM 9/9/99 +0200, Javier wrote:
>At 12:55 3/09/99 -0400, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>>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;
>
>The WG cannot go into detailed analysis, it wold require a consulting firm. 
>This is what the Public comment period should be for, to have anybosy who 
>feels affected publically express their concerns.
>
>>    (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;
>
>This two issues are, again important, and the more complete a proposal is, 
>the more possibilities it has to be accepted, but we should also allow 
>points of view to be expressed without implementation plans, otherwise we 
>may be cutting away ideas that might be of interest.
>
>
>>    (e)  a statement of which stakeholders have
>>         been consulted about the proposal and what
>>         support the proposal has in the various
>>         stakeholder communities.
>
>We don't need to make this mandatory, but recommend that it be done, to 
>show support for the proposal.
>
>In short, I would post these as recommendations for those who wish to make 
>proposals, but without making them mandatory.
>
>Javier
>
>>It might then be helpful to publish the report for a public comment.
>
>Definitely. It should be part of the process.
>
>Javier
>
>
>
>