Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure
--- Eric Dierker <email@example.com> wrote:
> I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
> the GA.
> They were really quite well worked out. They could easily be adapted
> our necessary working group models.
> I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good. I think they
> could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
> They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer
From RFC 1600:
"To allow time for the Internet community to consider and react to
standardization proposals, a minimum delay of 6 months before a
proposed standard can be advanced to a draft standard and 4 months
before a draft standard can be promoted to standard."
These time standards especially are something that everyone can benefit
from. With all the deletions proposals coming in (and I believe some
registrars and non-registrars are preparing other proposals to be
published soon), it is only reasonable to make sure that certain care
is taken in arriving at the right policy going forward.
It seems inappropriate for the group that is making a proposal to set
their own deadline (e.g. 3 weeks) -- it should be done by an an
impartial third party.
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html