We can consider this a well-intended judgement call on the
part of the Chair, but it did compromised the integrity of process
within NCSG. I can understand the pressure of the time deadline and
there is
little to gain from being harsh here, but we should learn from this
episode.
The pressure of deadlines is real and while NCSG was
discussing the issue we should have designated someone to be
formulating text
for a possible RR, and for liaison with other constituencies on the
issue. Then
NCSG could have made a quick informed decision just prior to the
deadline.
In
this instance I would have preferred NCSG to recognize that time had
run out,
and simply move to endorse the RR after it had been submitted. That
may have
given the RR a bit less weight but it would have preserved the
integrity of process
within NCSG.
Again, the main lesson here should be that in the heat of
the preliminary discussions NCSG should designate someone (a
volunteer) to act
as the drafting person to formulate possible text in case NCSG
decides to make a submission,
and to maintain communication links with other constituencies for
collaborative
action. That would have been
easy to do
in this instance.