Kathy and all:

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "full range of comments"
especially after you other email forwarding links about "basic
documents" and "papers to date". I haven't found any previous
contribution at those locations, and in any event my understanding is
to collect and consolidate in a final collective statement the
contributions under the current extension period (BTW, did we have a
final or single collective statement, not scattered inputs, for the
initial period which has now been extended?). If I'm wrong, the I'm
not sure you will have the draft report today, because I have other
deadlines falling today, too. 

So currently, the inputs I'm seeing so far are Milton's, your (Kathy)
amendments to Milton's including your (to both) comments on the
preamble, and Carlos' remark on the need for a deep reshuffling of
the gTLD process/policy, with possibly a working group with clear cut
timeframe. I was under the impression that I received a note from
Carlos or Milton forwarding someone elese's input, but I don't seem
to see that in my folders, and start suspecting that this might as
well be a reminiscence of a dream... is it?
Regards,

Mawaki

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

>  
> Milton:
> Great, glad the comments made sense.  Mawaki, I think you will be 
> taking our 
> full range of comments and making them into a final report, is that
>  right?  
> Thank you!
>  
> The reason we send multiple people to ICANN conferences is so that
> we can  
> talk and listen to the widest discussions possible.  There were
> people at  the 
> last ICANN conference specifically sent by their companies to
> pursue single  
> letter top level domains.  The strategy they and the Business
> Constituency  will 
> be pursuing (I am led to believe) is that only the sponsored and  
> "super-sponsored domain names" should be allowed, not the general
> opening up of  general 
> gTLDs.  On the one hand, they will want .AOL (just an example, I 
> have not 
> seen the AOL people at ICANN); on the other hand, they don't want a
>  .WEB or 
> .OPEN because it will conflict with their trademarks.
>  
> So the strategy for us, I think, is to make it very clear to them
> that we  
> will block theirs until they let us have ours.  Open up the whole
> gTLD  system 
> (as you, Milton, propose) and all will be well.  Open up only
> little  corners 
> for the biggest companies in the world, and we will oppose.
>  
> That's my thought and proposal for NCUC.
>  
> As for the preamble, the deletion was inadvertent.  It is good. I
> like  the 
> idea of making it an appendix, or better, a "concluding NCUC note."
>   Regards, 
> Kathy
> 
> >We  should warn the GNSO Council about [snip] the new push from 
> >them to  allow only "one-company" top level domains --
> > .DISNEY and .O  (Overstock.com) are being discussed.  
> 
> On .O, I think you are  incorrect, Overstock wants "o.com," not .o
> as a TLD. 
> I know of no initiative  to add one-letter TLDs.
> 
> On .disney, I see nothing wrong with a  company-specific TLD per
> se. In fact, 
> I think it could be a progressive step  forward, further
> decentralizing power 
> over DNS, and making it clear to big  companies that if they want
> domain 
> names to be controlled in a specific way  they can get their own
> domains and run 
> them that way instead of trying to  regulate the way the rest of us
> use DNS.  
> Aside from that, why should  policy mandate that a company such as
> .aol, which 
> has 10 million email  addresses, must be dependent on an external
> registry 
> (.com) for such a  fundametnal part of their service? Why shouldn't
> they be 
> allowed to  self-provision?
> 
> >(so let's delete the paragraphs about  ccTLDs).
> 
> You're absolutely correct about this! 
> 
> One other point:  you (perhaps correctly) eliminated the preamble
> about our 
> prior policy votes  on this. While I agree that it reads smoother
> without that, 
> and that it  appears to conform better to the request for comments,
> I also 
> think it is very  important to remind everyone, as often as
> possible, that this 
> debate has been  going on for years, and that almost every time we
> consider it 
> the majority  view is that there should be some new TLDs. Perhaps
> we could 
> add an appendix  to that effect
> 
> 
>  
>