[wg-d] More WG Agenda Items

[Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Based on my recent and not very happy experiences with alleged WG A, I'd
like to add a few items to the stew.

1) Some thought needs to be given to the ability of WGs to fission into
various sub-groups.   While forbidding it seems awfully draconian, and
perhaps even pointless, there needs to be something done to prevent the
'divide and conquer' approach to viewpoints put forward by amatures. 
The profesisonals (e.g. paid lawyers) can attend a potentally unlimited
number of meetings...people with day jobs cannot.  

2) Thought needs to be given to the relationship between a sub-group and
and WG, esp. when a sub-group produces a 'report' -- what review is
appropriate by the WG.

3) Some number of signatures of the participants in the WG should be
required on the final report to prevent a 'runaway' chair.

4) Should there be provision for statements of dissent (and time built
into the timetable after the 'final' draft of the final report)?

5) Should some non-mandatory guidelines of 'good taste' be developed? 
E.g.  note the minority views if they exist?


-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--