Re: [wg-c] Our mission

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Philip,

An alternative you may wish to consider is taking your views
to a venue which is more sympathetic to them.

In a strong-chair list-based working group a participation
form such as yours (assume for the moment your recent contributions
are so imprecise as to be incomprehensible, and in effect about
colors or flavors of lip gloss) would have been the subject of
administrative correction.

In a weak-chair list-based working group the same conduct is subject
to correction only through non-administrative mechanisms.

For most of the period since the close of the public comment period
on the interim report of this working group, this working group has
been in the weak- (absent-) chair mode.

Please take your work (the incomprehensible lib gloss flavor and
color preference monologue) back to WG-B, where it originated, and
where it seems to be appreciated on its limited merits.

Thank you for reminding all of us that you are not alone in your
opposition to any gTLD creation at present, and that a large number
of rationals are available to support the claim that WG-C errored
in providing an affirmative response to Charter Question #1 (1).

It would be less indirect if you would argue that WG-B ought to be
preferred by the NC, or that WG-C be subordinated to WG-B, or that
WG-C be dissolved as a distinct entity within the NC WG structure.

You might as well have offered that Charter Question #1 ought never
to have been posed, or at least not posed to non-marks interests who
lack the necessary qualifications to exercise judgement and form the
correct answer.

My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows
in later mail today. You won't be amused.

Cheers,
Eric

References:
1 The WG-C Charter
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html