Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA Sub Team B and RAPWG report

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/21/10 2:40 PM  Feb 21, 2010, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I guess my third observation would be that both the output of our team, and
> the output of the RAP working group, will be headed to the GNSO Council, whose
> job it would be take into account any overlaps.  But for the reasons above, I
> don;t think there is likely to be any problem with the fact that topics with
> the same label appear in both outputs.

A personal observation. This would not be the first time that the GNSO
Council would be tasked to recognize overlaps or duplication of effort. Some
of what the RAP WG is considering was examined by the Fast Flux WG and some
by SSAC. (Another example of a similar sort of overlap is that the RSSAC and
SSAC are both studying issues related to root scaling and issues including
and beyond what the root scaling study team or "RSST" considered in its
report). One value of having some overlap is that you get a broader field of
expertise and perspective. Also, at this point, the RAA DT hasn't studied
many of the issues in depth (whereas RAP WG has studied some in depth), so
having an exhaustive list of potential amendments seems to have merit still.