RE: A proposal for URL registration PROCEDURE

Regarding Mark Fisher's comments on my proposal -

> >3) Forward it to a committee for review.  Committee to take no more than
> >   x weeks to review.  Committee returns recommendation to IESG for further
> >   action (return, approve, forward to WG) with-in x weeks.
> >
> >4) Forward to a WG for consideration.  (A WG may have to be chartered.)
> 
> Do we need different "x weeks to review" if a WG needs to be chartered?
> I am unsure as to just how fast this actually occurs (never have really
> kept track in my activities).

Perhaps poor wording on my part.  My intent was that there was a reasonable
time between the recommendation being returned by the review committee
and the DECISION to charter a WG or other action.  WG charters can take
time as well as recruiting chairs, etc.  Better wording is indeed needed
here.