Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Ken,
	October 1st is Friday this week! A re-ocurring theme in all these
discussions of how many gtlds, at what speed, what type of registries etc...
was that we were groping around in the dark because the NSI position was so
unclear. It's (finally) been clarified (though there may be room for
imaginative and wishful interpretations, I'm sure!).
	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.
	I would propose giving us at least an extra couple of weeks just to
see if this really IS the clarification that we were calling for. If we're
still where we were, then fine, just declare the small issue (6-10 new gTLDs
please.) all we can come up with...

Yours, John Broomfield.


> please explain why this event would be relevent to deadline dates ?
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
> To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 2:04 PM
> Subject: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone
> 
> 
> > I move that all current deadline dates (including but not 
> > limited to the October 1 deadline for posting first drafts)
> > be adjourned sine die in light of the just-announced
> > agreement among NSI, DOC and ICANN.