RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Tagged Names, etc

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Please note my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:44 PM
> To: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Tagged Names, etc
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On 8 feb 2007, at 16.31, Patrick Jones wrote:
> 
> > So far all we are doing is discussing what is on the 
> existing reserved 
> > names list(s). Once the background research has been done, 
> then the WG 
> > can debate what should and should not be on the list or if changes 
> > should be made.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> That goes to my last question:
> 
> When we say some topic is simple (i.e. low hanging fruit), 
> are we saying that a decision on
> 
> a. including the existing list of that category is a simple decision?

No.  I don't think we will know that in some cases until we start
discussing possible recommendations.  What I think we are saying is that
the category may be able to be dealt with in a relatively short time
compared to other more controversial categories.  For an extreme
example, IANA names are much easier than controversial names.  

> b. including the category as it may develop now and in the 
> future is a simple decision?

No.  
> 
> If b, then we cannot make evaluations of difficulty until 
> after not only the current state is described but until after 
> the possible evolution of the category is understood.  This 
> is why I argued that all items on the list were currently of 
> the moderately complex type of issue.

It is not out of the realm of possibility for a category to be
classified as 'simple' now and later be changed to 'more complex' once
we consider it further.  Our goal at this point is to try to organize
our work and see what categories may be realistically handled in the
near term and which ones may not.  But we won't know for sure until we
dig deeper into each category.


> 
> a.
> 
> 
>