Re: [wg-review] [Straw Poll] Review WG Needs More Time?
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[ ]
> 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
> 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
> give proper consideration to the subject, and allow a fair and equitable
> > opportunity for full International participation, the timeline for
> run through 20 February 2001.
> > This is still in plenty of time for Melbourne. Also, It is unlikely
> 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
> > the short term is that this WG cannot begin to complete its assigned
> > by January 15. The notion that we could come up with consensus
> > on each of the points in a full-scale recommendation paper responsive
> > the task force's questionnaire, in the holiday-laden 19 days remaining
> > us, is far-fetched in the extreme. Accordingly, it seems to me that
> > Chair should return to the NC explaining this reality (as I believe
> > already suggested), and requesting an realistic date.
> > Once we have a realistic date in front of us for completing
> > (i.e., with respect to each of the questions put to us, either 
> > consensus or  determining that we can't reach consensus, and instead
> > summarizing the competing positions and the arguments in support of
> > 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
> > things Javier and I didn't do, but should have . . . )
Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
(The Richest Hill On Earth)
Send a cool gift with your E-Card