RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone

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

I was told that you do not need the Names Council's permission with
respect to your internal October 1st deadline or  any other internal
deadlines you set.  For what it is worth, there was support of extending
the deadline for one week in light of the new ICANN documents.  

However, should you need an extension of the October 15th deadline
(which was dictated by the Names Council) please let the Names Council
know.  

Accordingly, please let WG-C know whether you will be extending the
deadline and if so, by what date.
Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 5:38 AM
To: Roeland M.J. Meyer
Cc: Chicoine, Caroline
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone



Private e-mail to Roeland and Caroline:

	I haven't heard back from him (either in response to the list
message or to the private message I sent him last night).  If I don't
hear
anything by COB today in Europe (that is, lunchtime EDT) I'll just
announce that we're going with the extra week.

Jon


On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> So, did Javier think otherwise?
>
> > -----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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com