On 16 Jun 2018, at 16:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Ken Stubbs:
Thankyou. I think you and Anne are correct, if for other reasons.
1. there are several aspects of the draft report which - taken literally - would seriously prejudice the outcome of the WT5 work on Geographical Names. I would not support taking those matters off the WT5 agenda simply because other WTs have been closed down, prematurely, by 'finalising' their draft reports.

As pointed out by many during the call, this is simply not true. WT5 has full discretion to determine whether something particular to Geo Names needs different handling.

2. WT5 started late (¿Why?). So be it, but then the PDP has to mark time while the Geo-Names issues are resolved, including aspects that are being treated, to date, by other WTs.

Also not true, since there is much more to discuss than Geo-Names specifically.

3. From my point of view I could not support going out for 'public comment' on the basis of a partial draft that does not reflect a consensus of the Work Tracks.

This was already answered a number of times by co-chairs.