[wg-review] [Straw Poll] Review WG Needs More Time?

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Hello Members,

As assigned coordinator from NC, I feel obliged to deliver
WG members' request(Jonathan Weinberger, Peter de Blanc,
DPF, Milton etc.) to extend its deadline to Names Council.

As soon as WG has consensus on this, it will be done properly.
Please express your views on this.

First, Review WG needs more time!

Yes[    ]
No [    ]

Second, Review WG's interim report will be presented until ___.
    - Option A: Feb. 20
    - Option B: March 4? Melbourne Meeting
    - Option C: Your Own Specific suggestion

Option A[    ]
Option B[    ]
Option C[    ]

Thanks,
YJ

Milton Mueller wrote:

> I agree with this suggestion.
>
> I would suggest that the original time limit has more to do with the
existing Names Council's unwillingness to have a real review than anything
in DC.

DPF wrote:

> Fully support this.  Even without that quaint little custom known as
> Xmas/New Year getting in the way the timeframe is ridiculous.  We
> certainly can do a report by 15 January but IMO it would be
> significantly lower quality than if one had more time.


Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I propose that this WG communicate to the Names Council that, In order to
give proper consideration to the subject, and allow a fair and equitable
> opportunity for full International participation, the timeline for output
run through 20 February 2001.
>
> This is still in plenty of time for Melbourne. Also, It is unlikely that
the new US secretary of commerce is going to make any substantive moves
while this work is in process.

Jonathan Weinberger wrote:

>          I suspect that the *only* issue on which we can reach agreement
in
> the short term is that this WG cannot begin to complete its assigned task
> by January 15.  The notion that we could come up with consensus agreement
> on each of the points in a full-scale recommendation paper responsive to
> the task force's questionnaire, in the holiday-laden 19 days remaining to
> us, is far-fetched in the extreme.  Accordingly, it seems to me that the
> Chair should return to the NC explaining this reality (as I believe she's
> already suggested), and requesting an realistic date.
>
>          Once we have a realistic date in front of us for completing work
> (i.e., with respect to each of the questions put to us, either [1]
reaching
> consensus or [2] determining that we can't reach consensus, and instead
> summarizing the competing positions and the arguments in support of each),
> then it would make sense to establish a workplan, with intermediate
> deadlines, so that we have a shot at actually finishing our work by the
> date set.  (I'm trying to learn from my mistakes in WG-C, so that we do
the
> things Javier and I didn't do, but should have . . . )