[wg-review] Evasive Answers from NC Chair

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

1. The first question posed to the NC Chair was by what authority is the
Mailing List of the WG Review being closed as there is no Names Council
resolution to that effect in the public record.  This question has not been
answered.  Where is the Names Council resolution to that effect?
2. The second question pertained to the formal appeal for the
reconsideration of the termination of the life of the Review Working Group,
filed according to Names Council procedures with the Intake Committee, to
which there has been no Names Council response.  Will the Names Council
insist it is proceeding on the basis of "fairness" without a reconsideration
policy in effect?  What is the point of these Intake procedures if there
again is no public record of commentary or discussion on these requests for
agenda items?  Is the Intake committee just another sham in the long list of
Names Council committees that refuse to perform their assigned tasks
properly?

We have read the Scribe's notes of the Melbourne meeting:
Park: What's the difference between an interim committee and a task force?
           • Sheppard: Interim committee is just a small group of people to
determine what is needed to address a particular issue. "Other group" is
precisely intended not to say working group...
Kane: How many members on interim committee?
           • Sheppard: 3 or 4?
           • Kane: Maybe need a representative from each constituency, so a
few more than that?
           • Sheppard: A drafting group, rather than a group making policy.
Since there will be a few of them, maybe better to keep them small.

In this context, the NC Chair's comments seem to be more than a little
disingenuous:  "But please dont think consultation stops here. The input of
individuals who want to contribute further will be solicited soon as part of
an outreach with an ambition to be wider than the motivated individuals who
remain active of the WG review list. "

I do not trust any plan that again calls for NC outreach channeled through
small interim committees who will do no more than "filter" the work product
of members of the General Assembly.    This is a recipe for disaster.    We
have had more than enough experience with the disastrous consequences of
turning a project over to a small NC committee.  Of course, if you don't
want any meaningful amount of work accomplished or need to distort the voice
of community consensus, this is a perfectly valid approach.





--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html