Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 12:55 PM 3/09/1999 -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;
>
>   (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.
>
This might be the best solution. We will end up with a public document that
highlights the differences, but may show possible avenues for compromise.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org