RE: [council] Working Group "C" final report

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

While I like Paul's suggestion, I think some of this has been addressed in
WGC and therefore suggest the following next step:

Have Jon (or the submitter of a model) summarize the various models for
implementing new gTLDS that have evolved through the WG in the form of
position papers or otherwise in a "user-friendly" form, including public
comments received regarding the pros and cons of any model, and present same
to the Names Council. 

At least then we would have neatly documented the various approaches
reflecting the hours and hours of work that members of the WGC have
contributed, and most importantly, have a concrete set of proposals from
which to work.  I would hope that by focusing on a concrete set of models
and either adopting one (if we are so lucky to find one that has consensus)
or at the very least combining several to try to obtain one that everyone
can "live with" would be most helpful.  Alternatively, we may find that
multiple proposals could be implemented simultaneously.  Once we have all
the proposals laid out, we find similarities that are not always evident in
the abstract.  I think we saw that the Registrars' comments during the
NSI/DOC/ICANN discussions were given much weight simply because they had a
clear and concise proposal. Likewise, I believe Working Group B is making
great strides since their is a proposal on the table that people can work
with (again, it helps focus everyone).  WG C has debated the various issues
in great depth and detail and despite the high level of noise at some
points, there has been a very intelligent debate on the issues. I think now
we need to help focus the group so they can move to the next level. 

Just my thoughts.

Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M. Kane [mailto:Paul.Kane@reacto.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 1:38 AM
To: Ken Stubbs
Cc: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; names council
Subject: Re: [council] Working Group "C" final report


Thanks Ken for posting this..... Would it be an idea for the NC to
welcome the first part of WG C report and take the initiative by
establishing a Task Force to formulate a short questionnaire inviting
prospective Registry operator(s) to indicate their interest in servicing
(any) new gTLDS(s) ...

Such indications of interest would (I believe) assist the Board to
"short-list" potential registries as to how each (prospective) Registry 
proposes to address such issues as, chartered/non-chartered,
profit/not-for-profit, Registry Experience/Escrow/safeguards proposals,
Consumer/well known/famous mark protection policies, etc.

As for the Tel conf.... I am giving a Lecture at St Catherine's College,
Oxford on the 30th, so I would prefer Friday 31st March.

Thoughts?? 

Best regards

Paul


Ken Stubbs wrote:

> I hope all of you got back from cairo  and are on the way back to good
> health (specifically mikael)
>
> below is the final report for working group "c" your review. I will ask
> elizabeth to post this for comments as well on monday.
>
> i am requesting a teleconference names council meeting for thursady march
30
> or friday march31 as indicated in our recent meeting in Cairo. Please
notify
> me by monday  4pm EST (10pm CET) as to which day you feel is best. the
> meeting will be held this time at the time we have used previously for
> teleconferences (9amEST)
>
> the next Names council meeting after this will be scheduled in the later
> part of the day to accomodate the pacific rim members and in the future 1
> out of every three will be scheduled this way to provide some sort of
equity
> here. ( i am sure that you all would feel that this is only fair)
>
> we MUST finalize a budget for the names council at this upcoming meeting.
we
> are receiving a significant amount of heat & criticism from outside
>
> if you have any proposed agenda items please submit them to me by the
monday
> deadline as well.
>
> best wishes
>
> ken
>
<snip>