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)