[gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

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

>From what I can tell from Marilyn's message, this approach looks like a
reasonable one.  I would just caution though that the request for
feedback from the two experts needs to be very carefully worded to avoid
any need for further clarification from the experts because a 7 May
deadline for their responses will not allow any leeway for additional
consultation.  In may be helpful to inform the experts that any need for
clarification should be done NLT 4 May.  It would probably also be wise
to notify the two experts via a telephone call once the request is sent
to them to ensure that they receive it and understand the time
constraints.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 


________________________________

        From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:49 AM
        To: gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Gomes, Chuck
        Subject: proposed approach to getting confirmation from
'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL
recommendations
        
        

        Dear SL WG

        At the request of our chair, Greg Shatan, I am sending you a
proposed approach for how this SG could proceed to get concurrence for
its recommendations from the  two invited technical experts, Mark
McFadden and Steve Bellovin, who participated in a SG 'interactive
consultation call' on 4-23.

         

        You will recall that there has been some discussion on the list
related to how 'expert testimony' can best be provided in the Report. I
have forwarded Chuck Gomes, chair of the RN WG's related email. We
agreed on yesterday's Sub Group call that there is not an intent to
present 'expert testimony', since we actually didn't take 'expert
testimony'. The 'technical experts were invited to an interactive
discussion with the Sub Group, and participated in a conference call
discussion of some questions. 

         

        In my individual view, the free flowing nature of the dialogue
doesn't lend itself to being treated as 'expert testimony'; and in my
experience, in general, when experts present 'expert testimony', they
typically prefer to provide that in writing and to know from the start
that is what they are doing. 

         

        After reviewing the PDP and the instruction to the Task Force
related to 'outside advisors', I made a proposal to those on the Sub
Group call yesterday and Greg asked that I send it to the full Sub group
for general concurrence. Those on the call thought it made sense, but we
were missing Jon and Mike. I think everyone else was on the call for the
discussion. We need your quick concurrence to the list in order to
proceed and to meet the deadline for finalizing the report from this sub
group. 

         

        Recommended approach: The two technical experts should be sent
the recommendations for the four categories that were discussed on the
call. The members on the call yesterday proposed that the four
categories to be sent to the experts are:

        [taken from Greg Shatan's email of Sat 28 April 2007]

        Recommendations

        4: Single letters at the top level - Greg

        5. Single letters and digits at the second level - Alistair
[this is a correction from the email/made during the call]

        6. Single and Two Digits at the top level - Marilyn

        7. Single letter/Single digit combinations at the top level -
Neal

         

        The other recommendations were not reviewed with them, as you
will recall. 

         

        These recommendations and their write up which includes the
recommendation, rationale, expert consultation description and
references would be sent to Mark McFadden and Steve Bellovin with a
request that they review them and return an email with any comments, but
noting if they support the recommendation, or have questions, or have
comments to offer. They will be advised that the email response is
needed by Monday, 5/7, COB, and that the email will be part of the
archive of the Sub Group. We need to send the request by COB Wednesday
in order to give them time to respond. 

         

        Note: the sub group members discussed the category of 'expert
consultation' and agreed that it is to be a description of the process
of the expert consultation. It was not deemed feasible to include
extensive narrative statements from the discussions with experts.
Instead, the transcript of the call will be part of the reference
section, along with the list of relevant RFCs, or other technical
documents (if any) that were reviewed by the sub group. 

         

        In order to meet the deadline of next week, we need concurrence
from the sub group members to support this approach, and then we need to
send the relevant information to Mark McFadden and Steve Bellovin. Greg,
can you call me separately, regarding how the recommendations should be
bundled to send to the two experts. E.g. perhaps we can send them in two
emails: sending the two that are done early tomorrow, and then follow
them with yours and Alistair's? Also, we need to discuss the suggested
approach with Chuck Gomes, as chair of the RN WG. I copied him on the
email so that he is aware of the request. 

         

        Please respond back to the full sub group list by CoB Tuesday,
regarding your views or suggested changes to this approach, keeping in
mind the time limitations that we face. 

         

        Best regards, Marilyn Cade

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:11 PM
        To: Marilyn Cade; mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-sl-wg] FW: [gnso-rn-wg] Initial draft summary
of the conference call with technical experts on ASCII letters and
numbers - prepared for the SubGroup

         

        If we are including expert testimony, it is critical that we
quote their testimony rather than report an interpretation of what they
said.  If for some reason that it is not possible to quote their exact
testimony, then we must make sure that we accurately represent what they
said.

         

        Chuck Gomes

         

        "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."