[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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/
>
>
>