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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

I share some of Javier's concerns about the wording of this document:
>  The interim
> report, as well as the final report from a working group, should contain 
> the following elements:
> 
> (a)	a detailed overview of the proposal;

How about:

	(a)  an abstract

Reason: the proposal is in hand, and supplies all its own details, by 
definition.  There is no doubt that an abstract or overview or summary 
at the beginning is very useful, but the emphasis on "detailed" is not 
helpful.

> (b)	a full analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the
> proposal;

How about taking out the word "full"?  That simply doesn't comport 
with the word "might" later in the sentence.  That is, a "full" 
analysis of what "might" be impacted is far too open ended -- we don't 
want want a treatise, just some evidence that there has been thought 
given to what impacts there might be.

In general, I hope that the following bullets are interpreted in that 
light as well.  As Javier points out, WGs are volunteer efforts, and 
do not, for example have the funds or the resources to do a market 
study about the impact of new gTLDs.  What we are looking for is 
evidence that the various bullets have been considered, to the extent 
that the WG has resources and time to consider them.

> (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.


> 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.

I'm not sure of the value of a "rebuttal" approach, at least in terms
of "replies" to other groups sub-reports.  There could well be 3 or
more points of view represented in a WG report, and the replies could
get complicated.  A sub report could have a section that addresses
alternate arguments in general, without casting it as a "reply" to
another sub report.  If there are two or more iterations of the whole
report, that should give various groups opportunity to polish their 
arguments, without casting it in the somewhat antagonistic model of 
"replies" and "rebuttals".

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain