[cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F Taipei Oct. 3-5 for review

[Gervase Markham]

On 28/09/17 20:32, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Jeremy, we spoke before and you suggested a fairly brief Validation
> Working Group report at the plenary session - and I agree we don't
> want to reproduce everything that happened in the WG again in the
> main session.  But it might be worthwhile go provide a fairly
> detailed list of the issues the Validation WG is working on during
> your update report as there's lots of interest in this subject.

I suggest we should go further. I would like the Validation WG to come
away from the face-to-face with a clear sense of how disputed each of
their discrete proposals for improvement to domain validation is. Then,
they can put the less disputed ones into one ballot which we can pass
quickly, reaping good gains and avoiding lots of good stuff being held
up by arguments over one piece. We can then also map out pathways
towards agreement for the more difficult issues.

Doing this would require more than a report from the Validation WG, it
would require them to present us with a list of possible improvements,
and for each to be discussed and then perhaps straw-polled with a show
of hands to give the sense of the room. This might take a while, but I
think it's time well spent.

The fact that we have an entire WG for validation, one sub-sub-section
of the BRs according to our numbering scheme, shows how important it is.
There is a long queue of potential changes and we should take this
opportunity of meeting together face-to-face to shorten it significantly.

Gerv