DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I

Hello Greg and all,

> Based on the February 20th date established by YJ, I have proposed a
> schedule of 4 day sections for deeper  and more concentrated consideration
> of issues. Each period will conclude with motion formation and a vote,
> overlapping the discussion period on the next topic:

Regarding the date, Feb 20, was not established by myself at all.
I personally go for March 4 however, it was not even counted below
since I am a coordinator who is supposed to neutral.

This poll result is also in [Appendix 1] Various Poll Results.
[Q] Review WG needs more time?

Total number of votes 20 unanimously "YES" with different options for
the working deadline, which was circulated in the Names Council list on
Jan 5.

Option A, Feb 20 : 8 members
Option B, March 4 : 10 members
Option C: member's own independent suggetion 2.

Source: Review-WG list: wg-review@dnso.org

This is the previous message sent to NC on January 5th after poll.

From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 2:13 AM

[FYI] Straw Poll Result on WG Timeframe.

20 members participated in this straw poll out of 145 subscribers
- the number of subscribers to this list can be subject to change. -
2000. Dec. 30 - 2001. Jan. 1 for two full days during the holidays.

Option A, Feb 20 : 8
Option B, March 4 : 10
Option C: 2

"Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>: Option A[ X ]
"Bruce" <bmjames@swbell.net>: Option A[ X]
"Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>: Option B[  x  ]
"grumpy" <stonecottage@earthlink.net> : Option B[  x  ]
"Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>: Option B[ X ]
"Phil King" <yofelipe@excite.com>: Option A[  X  ]
"Peter de Blanc": Option A
<ZFASSETT@aol.com>: Option A[ X   ]
"Clarence Donath" <mrdo@mrdo.com>: Option C[ X ]  Friday March 9, 2001
"Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>: Option B[  X  ]
"DPF" <david@farrar.com>: Option A[  X  ]
"Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>: Option B[X ]
<JessWest@aol.com>: Option A[ x   ]
"Marcia Lynn" <marcialynn@att.net>: Option B[X ]
"Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>: Option B[X ]
"Michael Bracker" <michael.bracker@gmx.net>: Option B[X]
"J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>: Option B[ X   ]
"Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>: Option A[X]
"Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>: Option B[YES]
"Michael Sondow" <msondow@iciiu.org>: Option C[ X ] When the
                                                     WG has completed its

Therefore, please reconsider your earlier decision


> >1. Preliminary Report Discussion and Approval
> >2. Constituencies
> >3. General Assembly
> >4. Names Council
> >5. Work Groups
> >6. Standardized Procedures and Language/Translation Issues
> >7. Outreach
> 8. Final Report Approval
> I appreciate the time constraints involved, and will continue to expedite
> the process as much as possible. At the same time, if this working group
> viewed as a laboratory, it appears that allowing it to work to that date
> might well yield substantial results on process and effectiveness. Because
> of the open nature of the WG, we have had people involved who have never
> participated in an email list, let alone a working group. Their presence
> and learning curves offer us a valuable opportunity to see what works, and
> what structures need to be in place so that future groups start off more
> smoothly. I believe it would be a mistake in the long run to ignore their
> education (and our education in what is needed) for the benefit of
> faster results.
> Regards,
> Greg
> sidna@feedwriter.com

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>