[gnso-vi-feb10] Subject matter expertise

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At some point early in the evolution of the DAG and the application
evaluation process it attempts to document as a series of
interconnected somewhat opaque boxes, I offered the observation that
it would be simpler to simply dragoon a small group of those of us who
have written numerous applications to perform a triage on the pile of
applications.

My reasoning was we know each other's bias and on average our
aggregate unfairness has limited range, and we could rather quickly
discern, as we do every time we meet people with registry business
ideas, those that are likely to thrive, those that are unlikely to
thrive, and those that take more than a single reading.

It seems to me that the pre-process to the competition policy in the
CAM proposal is an appeal for some standing consultative body.

It also seems to me that the recourse to exception upon some
condition, lack of registrars usually, that avoids trivial gaming,
also contains an appeal for some standing consultative body.

What parts of this problem look less intractable if we posit a
Committee of Experts as the front of some rule-driven decision process?

Eric