<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3640" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=082485516-28012010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Gotta have a Drafting Team to charter the WG, given all the
conversy about definitions and what is in and out of scope.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>My reading of late night mail exchanges indicates that some councilors are
fully prepared to support the <SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">Mary/Mike revision. I doubt anyone in the US is
awake at this hour, but if someone could clarify for me the thinking behind
a) WG but not a DT to charter the WG and b) WG report in 90 days rather
than something more realistic, I'd appreciate it. Not sure at present
which to vote for, both have problems.</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>