Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

For someone who is used to working in environments where making things work and accomplishing goals is the goal, this approach of the DNSO is astonishing.  However it would appear that due to the very hardwork of many individuals that a report which cannot be
ligitimately ignored will be submitted. I think we should all recognize that the day of the DEADline is the day that the U.S. memorializes a man for his contributions to civil rights and civil liberties.
I have the very real feeling that many are watching and that if the DNSO does not pass the test that corrections will be forthcoming.

Sincerely,


"Marsh, Miles (Gene)" wrote:

> Theresa,
>
> I do not understand your tone or approach here.  Many memebers of this list have openly discussed the task at hand and the original deadline.  If the intent is to shove something, anything through this WG regardless of its value, then the January 15 deadline is fine.
>
> If on the other hand, there is a desire to obtain a well though approach toward the issues, the reasonable request for additional time should be considered.
>
> There is no confusion here.  There is not enough time, and we are asking for more.  You have not answered the question.  Please try to be direct this time.
>
> Gene...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 1:05 PM
> > To: YJ Park (MINC); YJ Park (MINC); jo-uk@rcn.com; J J Teernstra
> > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested
> >
> >
> > YJ,
> >
> > I've read the string of messages under this subject heading
> > and am somewhat
> > surprised to see that there remains some confusion about the
> > deadline for
> > the working group's report per it's mandate. The revised
> > deadline has been
> > known since the working group's establishment, and reminders
> > were sent out.
> > For your convenience, I've attached for the working group the
> > reminder sent
> > to you as Chair of this working group on the deadline for the working
> > group's comments based on it's mandate (a reminder of the
> > revised deadline
> > was also sent to each constituency representative, GA chair
> > and co-chair,
> > the task force receiving comments from all, and the NC). As
> > you know, the
> > adjustment made in the schedule for the DNSO review is to
> > accommodate the
> > working group's deadline of Jan. 15th, as set when the
> > working group and
> > it's mandate were established.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Theresa
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of YJ Park (MINC)
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 11:35 AM
> > > To: YJ Park (MINC); jo-uk@rcn.com; J J Teernstra
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Who is doing proposals as per YJ and what form do they take?
> > > > > Does the questionnaire have to be completed by Monday, or is the
> > > proposed
> > > > > completion date now February 2Oth?
> > > >
> > > > We should do it until Feb 20th.
> > >
> > > Sorry for using "until" again in this context ....
> > > I am not suggesting this should be wrapped up.
> > >
> > > On Feb. 20, review WG's first interim or progress report
> > will be submited
> > > to NC until this group finishes its mission.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > YJ
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Emanuel.exe