Re: [council] RE: WG Review Comments
> The constituency has just spent a great deal of time and energy on the
> question of making statements "on behalf of the constituency".
I have been there.:-)
> So it is quite troubling that the Adcom made such a mistake.
Yes or No.
As I repeated, AdCom delivered its position in the name of AdCom.
However, AdCom should have consulted with constituency first,
and then deliver the constituency position.
> It strongly suggests that the Adcom views itself as an executive committee
> with decision-making powers, rather than a group whose sole "content"
> functions are to "...advise members of the NCDNHC of the Names Council
> proposals and will
> assist Names Council representatives by providing input and information
> from NCDNHC members."
WRT this concern, these accumulating practices in the NCC will show what
AdCom's role is and should be which is also related to the whole NC's role
and responsibilty. However, I don't think you have to worry that much in
context. This time what I can say is AdCom members were just tied up with
things which made us, NCC AdCom, slip the idea.
> The Adcom should explain how the entire Adcom group was able to
> misrepresent the submitted document.
I do apologize for not circulating the AdCom's position earlier to the list.
However, it did not misrepresent any. It represented only "AdCom."
Therefore, AdCom comes back to the constituency with sorries.
I think this will set our good example for the future both NCC and NC.
Hope this explains.