Milton,

The the use of the lexeme (so to speak) "super-sponsored" apparently
coined by Kathy seems to me very clear from the text. So in my
opinion the problem is not that we may be the first ones to use it,
but the issue of a "growing push" in that direction. If such is not
the case, or if there is no agreement, we can either:

i) drop it as you've done, or 
ii) if still, you agree that it would be a hinderance for NCUC
interests in case there turns out to be a push in that direction,
even in the future, then we may still rephrase that part as a
precaution or warning.

So I guess the question is: how bad would single-company domains be
for NCUC, or to the Internet according to NCUC?

Again 24 hrs to go for any additional comments...

Mawaki 

--- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Mawaki:
> Thanks for your efforts. I've attached a draft that has edited out
> a few typos, and makes one substantive change: deletion of the
> paragraph stating unequivocal opposition to so-called
> "super-sponsored" domains. I do this for several reasons. Most
> importantly, I question rather strongly the assertion that there is
> a "growing push" for these single-company domains. I have been
> extremely close to the new TLD debate for some time and I see no
> push for it at all, much less a growing one. (Remember, the "O"
> single-letter domain push was for _second-level_ names, not top
> level.) Second, I suspect that no one else will know what we mean
> by "super-sponsored;" I have never seen or heard the term until
> now. Finally, the only people to weigh in on this was Kathy and I,
> on opposite sides. It seems there is no real agreement on this. 
> 
> If anyone new objects, go ahead and put that wording back in. 
> 
> As for this question:
> 
> >>> Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 1/28/2006 5:36:30 PM >>>
> >what about the idea of "a temporary freeze on
> >any gTLD move (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent, 
> >qualified pluralist working group (...) prepares a detailed report
> with
> >recommendations."? 
> 
> I think there's pretty strong opposition to that position in the
> constituency. If you want to give Carlos his due, simply add a
> paragraph to the effect that "one person within the constituency
> believes that there should be a temporary freeze on any gTLD move
> (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent, qualified pluralist
> working group (...) prepares a detailed report with
> recommendations," but as Kathy suggested in a prior note that would
> make the people who want no new TLDs very happy. 
> 
> 
> 
>