Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> >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.

It is *EXACTLY* the job of this WG to do detailed analysis, and more:  It
is our job to come up with specific, concrete, and fully specified sets
of procedures.

The public and the constituencies are, of course, welcome to participate
in this group, as well as to comment via the GA review.  (As I will
continue to point out, the NC has utterly no power under the ICANN bylaws
to review the substance of what we do beyond answering the simple question
"is there consensus?")

		--karl--