Re: [council] Review WG requests its progress report until Feb 20 or March 4.

[Michael Chicoine <mchicoine@pol.net>]

While I understand the concerns, I felt that we had an extensive 
and thorough debate and discussion touching exactly on these concerns 
at our last teleconference (as well as the fact that people have had 
several months to respond to the questionnaire, not just this short 
additional time period) and the vote was to stick with the agenda 
approved.  My understanding is also that the WG is charged with 
trying to outreach and get more people to respond to the 
questionnaire, and that the NC Task Force (not the WG) would prepare 
the report for our review. I am therefore not in favor of reopening 
this debate, especially at this late stage.
 



------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
Originally From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
Subject: [council] Review WG requests its progress report until Feb 20 
or March 4. 
Date: 01/05/2001 02:13am


Hello NC members,

Hoping that you have had happy holidays - Christmas and
New Year - I want to remind you of the concern expressed
during NC's Dec teleconference that it would be almost
"impossible" to come up with its final report until Jan. 15th
which cannot reach proper consensus due to its limited time.

If this report is not based upon true-sense consensus process
which needs enough consultations and enough chances to unfold
different positions, dnso-review will be categorized as nominal
or symbolic event prompted by Christmas mood.

Therefore, some WG members have proposed to extend its
timeframe to NC, which has been confirmed by straw poll
participants. Everybody participated in this poll agreed upon
this request. There is a slight difference on the date between
Feb 20 and March 4 which is under NC's discretion.

Appreciating WG members who have taken part in this group
despite BIG holidays, I do request NC to reconsider Review
WG can work with practical working days instead of around
10 -12 substantial days which is almost "impossible".

Thanks,
YJ
==========================================
[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
work.
===========================================
                                    [End of Message]