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.
>