Re: [council] FW: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

At 08:39 AM 29/09/1999 -0500, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:
>Any thoughts?
>

I think it's very reasonable. 
I support it.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:11 PM
>To: Chicoine, Caroline; wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone
>
>
>	I think that Caroline makes a good point.  It's perfectly
>reasonable for
>folks preparing position papers to want some extra time to think about
>these new developments, and whether they may affect their own positions
>or
>arguments.  I don't think a one-week extension is out of line; we all
>have
>day jobs, and the new documents are both complex and important.
>
>	There's a cost to this:  The Names Council is expecting a report
>by
>October 15.  Extending the deadline for initial position papers to
>October
>8 means that we won't get the completed interim report done when
>promised.
>My inclination is that we should extend the initial deadline by a week,
>and
>beg the indulgence of the members of the Names Council.  But I haven't
>had
>the chance to consult with Javier, and I will defer to him if he thinks
>otherwise.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>co-chair, WG-C
>weinberg@msen.com
>
>
>At 05:15 PM 9/28/99 -0500, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:
>>I agree with WIlliam.  I would like to have time to review the
>>Agreements to see if they have any impact on the position paper we are
>>preparing. I think if we could extend the deadline by one week (give us
>>a weekend to reflect on these new documents)) it would be helpful.  I
>am
>>copying Andrew McLaughlin of ICANN in order to see whether this is
>>possible or necessary. Andrew, can you give us some guidance? 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 4:42 PM
>>To: Dave Crocker
>>Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; CONNOLLK@rspab.com; kstubbs@dninet.net; John Charles
>>Broomfield
>>Subject: Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone
>>
>>
>>
>>On 28-Sep-99 Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> At 02:17 PM 9/28/1999 , John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>>>>         Seeing that the only thing we more or less managed consensus
>>on
>>>>serves nearly no purpose, and that the big roadblock to more
>>discussions and
>>>>consensus building has been (IMO) lifted, I think that just giving us
>>3 days
>>>>to post drafts is somewhat premature.
>>> 
>>> Try the other view of this event, namely that the increased clarity
>of
>>the 
>>> situation should permit us to move more decisively.
>>> 
>>
>>3 days is not sufficient time to move at all, or even to have time to
>>sufficiently analyze the impact these agreements will have on the
>>subject of
>>the drafts.
>>
>>A delay in light of this is perfectly reasonable, and indeed mandated
>by
>>an
>>event such as this.
>>
>>--
>>William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
>>Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Raul Echeberria
raul@inia.org.uy