I agree pretty much with the draft Milton sent. A 
couple of changes (track changes in attached.)

Make the quotes clear.
in 3, expert groups have not always been ICANN affiliated.
Afilias isn't American
using "disaster" is a bit emotional.

And I'd add a final sentence "The addition of new 
TLDs should be predictable in timing and 
procedure, transparent and rule-driven." (which i 
think is very close/same to a suggestion made in 
a paper by Mueller and Weinberg?)

Adam




At 10:14 PM -0500 1/28/06, Milton Mueller 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.
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: MacOS X:gTLD_NCUC 
>Statement_#2CE54E.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002CE54E)