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.