The USG is going to undergo serious change in how it approaches these  
things sometime in the next 6 months or so, although possibly not even  
for a year dependning on who gets appointed to what.

I am sufficiently removed from this issue these days to guess how  
career staff are on the issue.  I also anticipate that ICANN will be  
very low on USG priority  list for NTIA.  Our transition to digital  
television will absorb almost all attention at NTIA until the end of  
February at a minimum.

Mind, I don't expect ICANN to do the smart thing and ignore this  
letter as the last hurrah of a discredited administration --  
especially when it jibes with too many staff prejudices. But it really  
should not have the influence that it undoubtedly will.

Harold

Quoting Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>:

> Well the news is partly good and partly bad. As a whole the letter seems
> to be an attempt by NTIA to get ICANN to stop or delay for another 2
> years or so any addition of new TLDs. We know that lots of
> business/trademark lobbies have been complaining loudly about the new
> gTLD process. While the paragraph cited by Robin does indeed agree with
> our position, the general upshot is "back to square one." I would like
> to solicit constituency comment: is this new gTLD process so bad that we
> want to stop it altogether? In many ways this would have to be seen as a
> massive failure - after 10 years, ICANN still cannot define an ongoing
> process to add new TLDs?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] US Govt Agrees with NCUC on ICANN's
> "Inappropriate" Plan to Police Morality and Public Order
>
>
>
> The US Govt submitted its comments to ICANN on the introduction of new
> gTLDs.
>
>     http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00175.html
>
>
>
> And the US Govt agreed with a point NCUC has been making throughout this
> entire process.  The US suggests ICANN "Focus on coordinating technical
> functions related to the management of the DNS and not on matters more
> appropriately addressed by governments, such as adjudication of morality
> and public order and the community objections in accordance with
> international human rights law.  The proposed mechanisms are
> inappropriate."
>
>
>
> Interesting to say the least.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>