Re: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Philip and fellow NC members:

I realize that I am coming in on the tail end of the WG Review and the Names Council Review Task Force (NCRTF) process. I do not want to delay or obstruct disposition of an old issue. I encourage you to conclude this process. 

I do, however, wish to make it clear that I and many members of my constituency were deeply disappointed with the way the Names Council handled the Review. We feel that the process was designed to insulate the Council from demands for serious reform and restructuring. I concur with my predecessor Dany Vandromme that the timetable set for the Review WG revealed a lack of good faith. I hope that in the future, the Council will refrain from establishing working groups that are designed to fail. 

The final DNSO Review report will suffer from a lack of legitimacy as a result of these problems.

--Milton Mueller

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 02/27/01 05:11AM >>>
NC members,
As agreed last night this is the message I propose to send on behalf of the NC to WG review. This is consistent with NC decision D2 of 8 February 2001.

(I note since the NC meeting YJ Park has posted a personal commentary and an older version of this to the WG review anyway. This is regrettable, it makes for poor communication to the working group. It also seems to be contrary to the spirit of collegiate agreement we seek to achieve within the NC.)