status of App URI, Scheduler API, and TCP UDP Sockets

There are 6 specs that reached First Public Working Draft (so formally 
on the REC track and eligible for relicensing to move to a CG). The CfC 
that ends at the end of the day Friday is for: Contacts, Messaging, 
Telephony.  Those seemed obvious and we use those, so we asked only for 
those.

There are 3 ofter specs that have reached FPWD (so eligible to ask for 
relicensing to move to a Community Group). I don't want to start another 
CfC on stopping work on specs this week to avoid confusion in the CfC 
that's about to end Friday.  The CfC for these I think would need to be 
worded differently because some look like they could be in scope for the 
WebApps WG and service workers.
App URI <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-uri/>
Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-task-scheduler-20141202/>
TCP UDP Sockets <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tcp-udp-sockets-20141202/>

Scheduler API looks like it would fit in Web Apps with Service Workers.  
A CfC we could do next week could be worded like this (not doing the CfC 
now - but would someone want different wording?):

NOT A CFC NOW - JUST WHAT THE WORDING COULD BE - WOULD DO THIS CFC NEXT WEEK
The purpose of this informal CfC is to determine consensus on the 
following proposition:
The members of the SysApps WG support stopping SysApps WG work on the 
following specs: App URI <http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/app-uri/>, 
Scheduler API <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-task-scheduler-20141202/>, 
TCP UDP Sockets 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-tcp-udp-sockets-20141202/>. Furthermore, 
the members do not object to moving these specs to Community Groups 
where other Community Groups or anyone outside W3C would be allowed to 
take and develop them (as allowed by the Community Group Contributor 
License Agreement).  However, if someone later asks the Director to 
allow these specifications to be moved, we expect that it is first be 
determined if Web Apps would like to pick the specs up.