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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As do I. Thanks. Jon

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Alistair DIXON [mailto:Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, May 02, 2007 01:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation 
from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL recommendations

I also agree with Marilyn's suggested approach.

Alistair 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2007 14:27
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-sl-wg] RE: proposed approach to getting confirmation
from 'technical experts' on their concurrence with Sub Group SL
recommendations


I concur with Marilyn's suggestion, with Chuck's caveats.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 01 09:54:08 2007
Subject: [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."