Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

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

> Ahhh.  NOW I understand the problem.
> 
> No.  I do not expect us to treat the latest event as yet-another reason to 
> distract ourselves.
> The goal should be to focus on a reasonable set of first-steps for 
> introducing new names and registries. The goal does not require focusing on 
> other issues, such as the intricacies of the NSI-related agreements.
> Yes, there are "easy" reasons to feel that such a distraction is 
> justified.  But easy does not mean good or right.  Especially when they are 
> held against the damage of yet-more delay.
> In fact the ready concurrence about further delay strongly suggests the 
> detached role most participants really have in this drama.
> d/

Ok, let's look at it from your point of view. After all discussions that
have taken place on wg-c, all we've come to consensus about is a rather
vague "yeah, add 6-10 new gtlds". If we present a paper on Oct-1st, it's
going to be a long winded expression of that (plus as many alternative views
as you want).
It's usefulness is ZILCH. It's "novelty" is zilch too.
The real info we had come to after all the discussing is that there is no
consensus.
I think I'm correct if I say that quite a few of the participants on this
list actually feel that the latest turn of events IS sufficiently important
to change the situation, and *maybe* permit this workgroup to give some
USEFUL output (otherwise why would so many be jumping on the "yes, lets
postpone" message?).
I'm as sick as you are at how long this whole process has been dragging on
for, but there seems to be substance AT LAST.
Let's start discussing...

Yours, John Broomfield.