Re: [wg-review] [Straw Poll] Review WG Needs More Time?

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:23:34 +0800, YJ Park wrote:

>  Hello Members,
>  
>  As assigned coordinator from NC, I feel obliged to deliver
>  WG members' request(Jonathan Weinberger, Peter de Blanc,
>  DPF, Milton etc.) to extend its deadline to Names Council.
>  
>  As soon as WG has consensus on this, it will be done properly.
>  Please express your views on this.
>  
>  First, Review WG needs more time!
>  
>  Yes[  X  ]
>  No [    ]
>  
>  Second, Review WG's interim report will be presented until ___.
>      - Option A: Feb. 20
>      - Option B: March 4? Melbourne Meeting
>      - Option C: Your Own Specific suggestion
>  
>  Option A[  X  ]
>  Option B[    ]
>  Option C[    ]
>  
>  Thanks,
>  YJ
>  
>  Milton Mueller wrote:
>  
>  > I agree with this suggestion.
>  >
>  > I would suggest that the original time limit has more to do with the
>  existing Names Council's unwillingness to have a real review than
anything
>  in DC.
>  
>  DPF wrote:
>  
>  > Fully support this.  Even without that quaint little custom known as
>  > Xmas/New Year getting in the way the timeframe is ridiculous.  We
>  > certainly can do a report by 15 January but IMO it would be
>  > significantly lower quality than if one had more time.
>  
>  
>  Peter de Blanc wrote:
>  
>  > I propose that this WG communicate to the Names Council that, In order
to
>  give proper consideration to the subject, and allow a fair and equitable
>  > opportunity for full International participation, the timeline for
output
>  run through 20 February 2001.
>  >
>  > This is still in plenty of time for Melbourne. Also, It is unlikely
that
>  the new US secretary of commerce is going to make any substantive moves
>  while this work is in process.
>  
>  Jonathan Weinberger wrote:
>  
>  >          I suspect that the *only* issue on which we can reach
agreement
>  in
>  > the short term is that this WG cannot begin to complete its assigned
task
>  > by January 15.  The notion that we could come up with consensus
agreement
>  > on each of the points in a full-scale recommendation paper responsive
to
>  > the task force's questionnaire, in the holiday-laden 19 days remaining
to
>  > us, is far-fetched in the extreme.  Accordingly, it seems to me that
the
>  > Chair should return to the NC explaining this reality (as I believe
she's
>  > already suggested), and requesting an realistic date.
>  >
>  >          Once we have a realistic date in front of us for completing
work
>  > (i.e., with respect to each of the questions put to us, either [1]
>  reaching
>  > consensus or [2] determining that we can't reach consensus, and instead
>  > summarizing the competing positions and the arguments in support of
each),
>  > then it would make sense to establish a workplan, with intermediate
>  > deadlines, so that we have a shot at actually finishing our work by the
>  > date set.  (I'm trying to learn from my mistakes in WG-C, so that we do
>  the
>  > things Javier and I didn't do, but should have . . . )
>  


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/