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