Final motions on VI

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Yes, I believe the first act of the WG would need to be to propose a charter to the Council.  This is not unheard of in other organizations.

The council needs to kick of the WG by soliciting members and find a liaison in the council (hope somebody who cares but does not have a POV they are championing).  The WG needs to pick a chair pending council approval and scope out the charter.

Thanks to the NCSG council members for puling this off and seeing their way through the sometime rancorous debate through to a compromise in the NCSG and to friendly amendments that were accepted.

cheers,

a.



On 28 Jan 2010, at 12:15, William Drake wrote:

> NCSGers debated this during the meeting, since the amended motion spoke of a WG but not a DT to charter the WG.  Wasn't easy to take such points up as the schedule was tight and we were pressed to get to the vote.  But there seemed to be consensus that the same thing would need to be done in the WG sans DT; how could it not, the WG can't just charge off without agreeing where it's going.  So there should be the possibility to resurface the JM issue and set the scope.  The timeline is, I think, impractical, but the council can extend it once the reality of the work ahead sinks in.
> 
> BD
> 
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Gotta have a Drafting Team to charter the WG, given all the conversy about definitions and what is in and out of scope.
>>  
>> My reading of late night mail exchanges indicates that some councilors are fully prepared to support the 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.
>> 
> 
>