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

["Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>]

Milton, are you saying that we should have given more time since the fall
when we first made our request for comments, were the questions not the
right questions? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 10:34 AM
To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; council@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] Communication on WG review - ACTION PLEASE!


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.)