Dear all,
Thanks Greg, this is indeed a useful synthesis.
I find myself agreeing with approach A for point I. Approach C has intellectual merit (a form of agnosticism...) but now that we are "in the question" I think that developing a minimal ex ante position as "our" interpretation of "our" mandate can be worthwhile. In the best of worlds, we would proceed as in C, however now that the debate is open, I think it is better to close it on something rather than nothing.
As for II, we should indeed focus on the "impact," (i.e. the problems) more than the solutions. However I note that many inputs at point I do talk of how to conceive solutions (in terms of mitigation of status quo, for example.) while some inputs at point II state that we should strictly focus on problems and maybe not even bring solutions to the table.
I am myself not very clear on that point: as WS2 subgroup are we supposed to bring solutions to the issues we identify or not? And is this actually up to "us" to decide? As far as I understood in Greg's summary of "foundational documents" (ref. May 23rd email) we are supposed to give recommendations i.e. solutions and not just pinpoint problems.
That being said, I like the idea of identifying problems before discussing solutions. As for III (immunity,) while I don't think immunity is an interesting solution in abstracto (there would be legal issues with seeking immunity and there could be unintended consequences of that immunity) I would still say "maybe" Approach A, but not now. I see Approach B and C as being discussion over a solution to a problem that we have yet to identify precisely.
This brings me to a nuance I would like to add: rather than the scope of our mandate and our work being a sort of red line, the point could be rather to always strive, for problems we identify, towards the least disruptive solutions with regards to the current situation, i.e. how can we optimise between maximum improvement/mitigation of the issue on one hand and minimum disruption/dependence on 3rd parties for implementation on the other? The issue of immunity is telling, because putting a scope "red line" actually does not reveal whether it is in or out of scope. Is immunity "just" mitigation or too big a dent in status quo? Hence, rather than attempting to solve this question here and now, we should first find a or several problems and then consider which solution is the optimal one given these two goals (improvement/mitigation and least disruption).