RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I might suggest a shorter time, until the following Monday or Tuesday.
This allows use of the week-end. I am sure that I am not the only one
whose day-gig intrudes onto hallowed ground, on a regular basis.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 9:11 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/
> >
> >
> >
>