I understand it now. The Board does notice that they have to do this
(witness the quote Adam Peake sent). But we want them to start ASAP.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, at 15:31 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> This motion is the beginning of a policy development process.
> If the GNSO passes this request, then ICANN staff is obligated to
> produce an issues report, and once it does that a PDP can begin.
> (Take note, prospective GNSO Council members of the future!)
>
> Why did I mention the MoU? Just to whack ICANN's management
> on the head a bit. To point out that it is something they agreed to
> do, and yet have taken no action on.
>
> >>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 10/21/03 02:54PM >>>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, at 10:57 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > This motion is intended to be considered at the Carthage
> > Meeting:
> >
> > "In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the
> > Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of
> > Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff
> > Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation
> > of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for
> > new TLD registries."
>
> In case we are to discuss this motion on this list before the meeting
> (which very few of us will be able to attend):
>
> 1. Why is the MoU in the text? I know ICANN cannot decide new TLDs on
> its own. Still, it now has a 3 year contract. The problem is not the
> MoU or the US Gov, is it? The problem is that ICANN does not set up a
> procedure. Why emphasize the MoU?
>
> 2. I would like to emphasize more that it is a long term thing. A
> procedure that is valid for 3 years. So that also orgs have enough
> time to apply. Not just companies, that can hire lots of people to do
> things fast.
>
> For the rest, I am all for it. We should try to open the name space
> ASAP.
>
>  >
>
>
>