RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

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/