RE: [council] Fwd from Jonathan Weinberg, STATUS REPORT, WG-C

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

Given Jonathan's posting (thanks Jonathan!), I do not think it is necessary
for me to post a summary of the status, except to provide a link to the
current charter under which WGC is operating
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html).  Knowing that there
will be a public forum on WGC in Cairo, I would like to discuss people's
view on whether the charter should be modified and if so, how (at a minimum
should we update/add deadlines to ensure things move forward since this has
been one of the biggest complaints of WGC participants?), and would also
like comments on Jonathan's proposed plan for proceeding.  At a high level,
I think we need to discuss for all Working Groups how do we ensure that all
views are being adequately and proportionately represented.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts either via email or on Friday's call.

Caroline






-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 2:26 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Fwd from Jonathan Weinberg, STATUS REPORT, WG-C


> 
> STATUS REPORT, WG-C, from Jon Weinberg
> 
> 	I have posted a summary of the comments on the WG-C interim report
at
> <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00490.html>.
> 
> 	The WG is developing a list of eight issues that must be resolved
before
> ICANN can introduce new TLDs; they are listed at
> <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00610.html>.  The issues
include
> matters that we have already addressed (e.g., "How should ICANN proceed
> with the initial deployment of new gTLDs? How large should that rollout
> be?"); issues that we are currently addressing (e.g., "Must a new gTLD
have
> a 'charter' reflecting a specialized purpose?"); and issues we have yet to
> address directly as a group (e.g., "What further conditions relating to
> trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs
> are introduced?  In particular, should ICANN postpone the introduction of
> new gTLDs until after completing its deliberations on the "famous marks"
> issue currently before WG-B?").
> 
> 	We are conducting a straw poll on the issue of chartered TLDs.  I am
> soliciting volunteers for a committee to develop a reference model
> detailing different possible structures for the ICANN-registry-registrar
> relationship.  I am drafting a document explaining the thinking (pro and
> con) behind the WG's conclusions on the desirability of new gTLDs and the
> nature of the initial rollout.  
>