Re: [council] Call for comments on the Interim Report from the WG-C, new gTLDs.

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

frankly i feel that 2 weeks is too short but 10 weeks is unnecessarily long.
it would seem prudent that a period of 45 days
would be a good compromise and would provide adequate time for consideration
as well as responses.

during ths period i would hope that possibly proposals for some sort of a
"testbed" process could also start to be formulated as well.
i would also hope that a concensus process would also be starting in the
area of "famous marks"  as well.

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>; <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Call for comments on the Interim Report from the
WG-C, new gTLDs.


> I agree completely with Dennis. WG Cs conclusions are diverse and need
time
> to consider. 10 weeks seems  wise to me. Are WG C reacting to a deadline
> which we the Names Council may have set? If so perhaps we should provide
> some comfort to WG C that we will extend the deadline. If it is not our
> deadline who is setting the time lines?
> Philip
>
>