RE: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Both Jonathan's and Javier's suggestions sound good --

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Weinberg
Sent:	Tuesday, September 14, 1999 10:19 AM
To:	Bret A. Fausett; Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; javier@aui.es
Cc:	Wg-d
Subject:	Re: [wg-d] Fwd: Draft Report to the NC regarding interim measures

Bret and Theresa


	Kudos on an excellent report (which I first saw just now, an hour
before the deadline -- I apologize for the lateness of my comments).  I
have two small suggestions that I think might improve the product further.

	1. I share Javier's skepticism about requiring the report to
contain the listed items (a) -(e).  As Bret acknowledged in his 9/8
message, many of these items are best addressed *after* the public comment
period.  In particular, the "support in the constituencies" item largely
speaks to the reactions reflected in the public comments which will not
yet exist when we are preparing the interim report.  I might thus replace
the sentence in the recommendations beginning "The interim report, as well
as . . ." with something like this: "To the extent feasible, the co-chairs
should seek to ensure that each proposal discussed in the interim report
is described in detail, and is accompanied by a specific implementation
plan, discussion of which entities and systems would be impacted, and
discussion of the costs and risks associated with the proposal."  (I
deleted "how they would be borne" b/c I think it's duplicative of "who
would be impacted").

	2.  The final sentence of this paragraph, beginning "You might
even allow . . . " is confusing.  Presumably any interim report would be
subject to some revision; that's what it means to be an *interim* report.
It might be better to replace this sentence with one reading, more simply:
"This interim report would provide the basis for the final report of the
WG."

	With the two modifications I'm suggesting, the "recommendations"
section of the report would look like this:

>>>
Working Group D recommends that the NC ask the working group to:

1)  prepare -as the interim output of the WG- a report with all the
different views that have been presented in the discussions. To the extent
feasible, the co-chairs should seek to ensure that each proposal discussed
in the interim report is described in detail, and is accompanied by a
specific implementation plan, discussion of which entities and systems
would be impacted, and discussion of the costs and risks associated with
the proposal.

Such a proposal should provide 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. This
interim report would provide the basis for the final report of the WG.

2)  Seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by seeking
to limit the list members' posts per day (say, to two).  This could have
two beneficial effects.  First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow
people to participate in WG-C without having it take over their lives.
Second, list members faced with this limitation might take care to make
their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or tangential things
unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments on the main
issues before the group.
>>>

	Again, the report overall is an excellent one; thanks for your
consideration of these suggestions.

Jon


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