Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

My concern is that making any type of reports mandatory could result on:

1) Reports from WGs could be protested by anybody who says "I am impacted 
by this issue and nobody came to ask for my opinion". That is why I think 
that this fits better in the Public comment period. Impact reports and the 
such should be prepared with voluntary input, not searching for parties who 
could affected. They can be included in the WG report if the input is given 
within the WG, but the WG itself should not be forced to search around.

2) Mandatory reports could make the time necessary for the work of a WG 
infiite.

Javier

At 21:31 8/09/99 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >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.
>
>Both you and Javier make good points.
>
>I understood David's comments, and my attempt to distill and incorporate
>them, as listing items that should be in any final report of a WG. You're
>correct that what we're discussing are the intermediate steps on the road
>to a final report. Javier correctly reminds us that many of impact and
>support issues might come from the public, or the constituencies, during
>the public comment period; presumably, those comments will be studied by
>the WG and included in the WG's final work product.
>
>With that process in mind and knowing that this WG might require any WG
>to include the kinds of "impact analysis" items listed in David's
>previous message, drafters of interim position statements might be well
>advised to consider those issues as they prepare their drafts and seek to
>court public opinion.
>
>Assume the question is "how many, how fast?" A report that stakes a
>position and then addresses how registries will be established, what the
>approval process will be, what the business model will be, how registrars
>will interface with the new registries, how the demand for new names will
>be handled (e.g., how the first new gTLD will handle the hundreds of
>thousands of new registrations it will receive in the first hour it
>opens), what the impact will be on users, trademark owners, registrars,
>etc. will certainly make a better impression in the general assembly than
>one that simply says "5 per month for the next 12 months" without any
>detail.
>
>But I like the idea of letting the market forces work. Addressing impact
>issues can be recommended, but not required (for interim position
>statements).
>
>       -- Bret