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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am assuming that we are moving ahead with this then, Greg, can you call me
today and perhaps look over some text, to be pasted on top of the
recommendations. One question I have is that we need the sections you and
Alistair are drafting by today, or we will  need to advise them that they
will get two transmissions, each with two short documents. Shouldn't we also
include the draft report, as a courtesy, so that they are able to see the
recommendation in the context overall? 

Finally, I have a question for this group, that I need to post to the full
RN WG. 

 

What is the process by which changes in RFC recommendations, when they
conflict with a proposed recommendation in the RN WG report? Will it be
sufficient to document that there has been a technical 'test', or that
allocations of such examples exist, without apparent disruption, or will it
be necessary to undertake a formal approach to updating RFCs, and how would
that work? 

 

I'll post that question to the RN WG. 

 

Best regards,

 

Marilyn Cade

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-sl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:42 AM
To: Alistair DIXON; 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

 

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."