Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed solutions

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

Could you create an example of what you want, from the email threads thus far 
posted?

Thanks,

Dave


On 7/31/08 2:40 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Mike,

It might be helpful if you'd keep a taxonomy of scopes and proposals,
and for each, not your synthesis of the most frequently restated claims,
but each distinct claim, and its author(s), by role(s) or WG
participant(s). There will be proposals that have a mechanism scope that
is distinct from our policy scope, and these differences should be
visible and easily understood to parties devoting much less time to
tracking the progress of this WG than its most active participants.

Also, is "Now's the time to present alternatives" or are we still
engaged in problem definition and scope, not to mention an initial round
of communications with our respective constituencies, which may be more
usefully attempted without premature solutions?

Eric

Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> Seems as though we've got a pretty good handle on the definition.
>
> How about opening up the floodgates on a discussion of proposed
> solutions?
>
> We have a few proposals.  Are there others?  I know that I've sortof
> damped this part of the conversation down a bit, while we were
> hammering out the definition.  Now's the time to present alternatives.
>
> m
>
>
> voice: 651-647-6109
> fax: 866-280-2356
>
> web: www.haven2.com
>
>
>
>
>
>