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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:40 PM 7/31/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams 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.
That's not a bad idea (bracing myself for a ton of work fixing a 
problem I created)
I'll see how I do, and get back to the list if I need some 
help.  Several things strike me as helpful;
- If you're proposing a new solution, put a *very* short identifier 
in the subject line of your note (eg Proposed Solution - disable the 
Internet).
- If you're proposing a new solution, write a *very* short summary of 
your proposal, and then use lots of words to justify it (giving me 
and Liz a jump start on the terse report/summary)
- If you're commenting on proposal, start with suggested wording of 
your counter-proposal (like we did on the definitions discussion)

> 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?
We're multi-threading at this point.  I'd kinda like to flush out a 
range of solutions, just to see what the landscape looks like.  We'll 
have to wait for some of those other pieces to arrive before we can 
synthesize the whole thing, but I'm interested in seeing what people 
are thinking about.

> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus 
> Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008 12:00 PM