And as the 'Normal monthly' Meeting for the ALAC is at the end of any Month I would like to state that any extension given (and I personally support a corresponding extension being given in line with what Chuck has said below) for AC/SO endorsements to be provided is a very good thing as long as it is at the beginning of (days 1=>10 or so) or very end (30/31st) of a month Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 17 July 2010 01:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

I know intentions were good Olof and as you know I was okay with the extension if the deadline for GNSO endorsements was correspondingly extended. What caught me off guard was that the extension was granted without the extension of the end of August deadline for SO/AC endorsements without GNSO input. I have been encouraging SGs to work hard to implement the GNSO process and to now ask them to rush their processes further without their concurrence seemed like the wrong thing to do.

I also respect Heather's request for the extension and support it as long as the GNSO is still able to adequately use a bottom-up process to endorse candidates.

Regarding the way forward, I personally believe that a 12 September delivery date for SO/AC endorsements would work well but want GNSO participants to weigh in on that. In fact, because the Council list is included in this communication, I welcome Councilors to comment on this distribution if they like. I will also send a message to the Council list directly requesting feedback and ask Councilors to seek input from their groups as possible. Of course, all of this needs to happen quickly.

Chuck <original text from message snipped here CLO>