Re: [wg-c-1] Drafting Proposal

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

No new date has been circulated.
I will use this opportunity to reiterate the ACM-IGC proposal:

We aim for a WG-C face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles in November, we circulate and
modify the proposal among the WG during the month of November, and we conclude the
report and submit it to the DNSO by the end of November.

I cannot endorse Connolly's proposal as a report because a) it states what is too
obvious to need stating, and b) it seems to imply that the WG disband because it
didn't meet the original arbitrary and unrealistic timetable. (This could be a
misinterpretation on my part) There's no point in starting all over again.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>         I think we all agree that we don't have time to produce a useful report
> within the timeframe set out in the charter; Javier said as much in his
> comments to the Names Council at its last meeting.  If my recollection
> serves, the other Names Council members noted that the deadline in the
> charter wasn't an ICANN mandate, and asked Javier to suggest a new one.
> Javier answered that he would circulate an e-mail to the Names Council
> members with a new suggested date.  This was a few days before our
> election; I don't know whether Javier in fact circulated an e-mail with a
> new date.
>
> Jon
>
> Jon Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
>
> At 02:06 PM 7/30/99 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> >Here is a draft report on Question #1.
> >
> >Yes, I'm dead serious about this.
> >
> >====================================================
> >
> >Drafting Committee 1 of Working Group C, chartered by the Names
> >Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, reports that
> >its charter does not afford sufficient time to ascertain, or develop
> >consensus with respect to the matters committed to it by its charter.
> >
> >=====================================================
> >
> >KJC
> >
> ><as usual, please disregard the silly trailer>
> >
> >**********************************************************************
> >The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> >and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> >product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> >and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
> >this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> >that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
> >munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
> >cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
> >at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> >**********************************************************************
> >
> >