More than nuggets, reading and trying to digest the entire document
feels more like eating a fruitcake.

I agree that it's obvious that nothing can be done with existing gTLDs
and as we discussed several times we must move on from the
dotCOM/NET/ORG era.

Also, it's true that we are way too far in the new gTLD implementation
process to pretend to introduce any substantial policy changes via
GNSO/PDP which will for sure incur in additional delays that would get
other constituencies more anxious and willing to eat us alive.

After my exchange of messages with Milton and last two meetings, my
understanding is that we still support the idea that we don't see
major conflicts in the "ownership" issue if the existing rules (or
almost the existing rules) in relation to contractual and
"operational" separation stay more or less the same.

I don't think it makes much sense to be very restrict in some aspects
with the new gTLD registries, while personally I don't like the idea
at all, if new gTLDs are something we/the community must have/need,
I'd like to see more successful gTLDs/registries than failed ones.

But (there is always a but no ?), I think that we have to be very
clear that we don't like replacing "bottom-up policy development" by
"implementation practice", sometimes I feel that documents like this
one transmit a message like "screw up the bottom-up process, we'll do
what we think we need to do and negotiated with the interested parties
and we'll call it -implementation-", if that's the spirit and
intentions from ICANN's staff I'm wasting my time.

Looking forward to today's call, see (bah hear) you.

My .02
Jorge