Re: [council] RE:NC Meeting

["Zakaria AMAR" <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>]

Dear Ken,

Unfortunately, I'm scheduled to take one week break with my 
family and planed to travel on the 31th.

Regards

Zakaria
> i do too...
> which is why i recommended in the e-mail i sent out that the future
> treleconferences be balanced to accomodate this problem...
> 
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>
> To: 'Erica Roberts' <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>; Ken Stubbs
> <kstubbs@corenic.org>; Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
> <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>; names council <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] RE:NC Meeting
> 
> 
> > I agree wholeheartedly with Erica!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au]
> > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 4:58 PM
> > To: Ken Stubbs; Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; names council
> > Subject: [council] RE:NC Meeting
> >
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > Either date is fine by me but I would ask for a change of time.  It seems
> > that every ICANN meeting is held at 9.00 EST  - which is 1.00AM for me!
> > This is becoming a major challenge and I request a change of time.  If we
> > cannot find a time when there is a reasonable chance that everybody is at
> > least be awake, perhaps we could rotate the time so that the pain is
> shared.
> >
> > erica
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Ken Stubbs
> > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 11:42 PM
> > To: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; names council
> > Subject: [council] Working Group "C" final report
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > > ------------------------
> > >
> > > Report (Part One) of
> > > Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > >
> > >
> > > This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group C.  It sets out
> > > the rough consensus of  the group regarding whether there should be new
> > > generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and if so, how quickly they should be
> > > added to the root as an initial matter.
> > >
> > > Introduction and summary
> > >
> > > Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues. The first is
> > > that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is that ICANN
> > > should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six
> to
> > > ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  This report will
> address
> > > each of these issues separately.  For each of the issues, it will
> > summarize
> > > the discussions within the working group, arguments pro and con, and
> > > comments received from the public.  It will then briefly summarize the
> > > ongoing work of the group.
> > >
> > > Procedural and outreach history
> > >
> > > The Names Council approved the charter of Working Group C on June 25,
> > > 1999, and named Javier Sola (Business constituency) as its chair.  On
> July
> > > 29, the working group members elected Jonathan Weinberg co-chair.  The
> > > working group includes extensive representation from each of the
> > > constituencies.  It is open to anyone who wishes to join, and currently
> > has
> > > about 140 members, many of whom are inactive. (For most of the life of
> the
> > > working group, no NSI representative participated.  When WG-C's co-chair
> > > solicited greater participation from the Registry constituency, Don
> Telage
> > > explained that NSI had chosen not to involve itself in the WG-C process.
> > > That representational gap has been filled now that Roger Cochetti and
> Tony
> > > Rutkowski, WG-C members from the start, have joined NSI in senior
> > > policymaking capacities.)
> > >
> > > On October 23, 1999, the Working Group released its Interim Report.
> That
> > > report described the issues on which the Working Group had reached rough
> > > consensus to date.  It also included seven "position papers," setting
> out
> > > alternative scenarios for the introduction of new gTLDs.  Those position
> > > papers usefully illustrate alternate approaches to expanding the name
> > > space, and address a broader range of issues than does this Report; they
> > > are available at
> > <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html>.
> > >
> > > On November 23, 1999, the Names Council formally requested public
> comment
> > > on the Interim Report.  This call for comments was publicized on a
> variety
> > > of mailing lists maintained by the DNSO, including ga-announce, ga, and
> > > liaison7c (which includes the constituency secretariats).  In addition,
> > > WG-C's co-chair spoke at the meetings of most of the constituencies at
> the
> > > Los Angeles ICANN meeting, and urged constituency members to file
> > comments.
> > > Nearly 300 comments were filed in response to the interim report.  They
> > > included responses from leading members of all of the constituencies but
> > > two - the record does not include comments from the ccTLD or Registry
> > > constituencies (although ccTLD members participated in the discussions
> > that
> > > led to the Interim Report, and WG-C's co-chair expressly solicited the
> > > comments of both of those groups).
> > >
> > > The initial draft of this report was circulated to the working group on
> > > March 2, 2000, and the report was presented to the Names Council on
> March
> > > 8.  The working group approved this revised version of the report in a
> > vote
> > > that closed on March 20.
> > >
> > >
> > > Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?
> > >
> > > Discussions within the working group
> > >
> > > The working group quickly -- by mid-July, 1999 -- reached consensus that
> > > there should be new global top-level domains.  There was very little
> > > dissent from this position.
> > >
> > > Arguments supporting the consensus position
> > >
> > > Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice, and create
> > > opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current
> name
> > > structure.  Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more
> > > registrations than all other top-level domain names combined, and is ten
> > > times the size of the largest ccTLD.  Yet it has become nearly
> impossible
> > > to register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year ago, in April
> > > 1999, a survey found that of 25,500 standard English-language dictionary
> > > words, only 1,760 were free in the .com domain.
> > >
> > > This situation is undesirable.  It requires companies to register
> > > increasingly unwieldy domain names for themselves, and is inflating the
> > > value of the secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names.
> > Existing
> > > second-level domain names under the .com TLD routinely change hands for
> > > enormously inflated prices. These are legitimate trades of ordinary,
> > > untrademarked words; their high prices reflect the artificial scarcity
> of
> > > common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on .com names in
> > > particular. The inflated value of the speculators' market imposes
> > > additional costs on businesses making defensive registrations of domain
> > names.
> > >
> > > Companies that currently have a domain name in the form of
> > > <www.companyname.com> have an extremely important marketing and
> > > name-recognition tool.  They have an advantage over all other companies
> > > that do not have addresses in that form, because the companyname.com
> firms
> > > are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most
> > > easily.  If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get
> > > easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to
> > > successful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered.
> Addition
> > > of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have the same
> second-level
> > > domain name in different TLDs.  Those businesses will have to compete
> > based
> > > on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which
> > > company locked up the most desirable domain name first.
> > >
> > > Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge noncommercial name space,
> > > and allow the creation of top-level domains designed to serve
> > noncommercial
> > > goals.  One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in the public
> > comments,
> > > advocated the creation of a new top-level domain to be operated by North
> > > American indigenous peoples.  Other examples are easy to imagine.
> > >
> > > Creation of new generic top-level domains can be beneficial in other
> > > respects.
> > >  One proposal before WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation
> of
> > > multiple registries, each capable of managing registrations for multiple
> > > TLDs, so as to eliminate the single point of failure for the
> registration
> > > process.  Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are necessary to support
> the
> > > multiple registries needed for stability.
> > >
> > > Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an important part of ICANN's
> > > mandate.  ICANN was created because the institutions that preceded it
> were
> > > unable to resolve the intense political and economic conflicts created
> by
> > > demand for new top-level domain names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's
> > > White Paper saw the establishment of policy "for determining the
> > > circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system" as one
> of
> > > ICANN's fundamental goals.
> > >
> > > Arguments opposing the consensus position
> > >
> > > Three arguments were made in WG-C that cut against the addition of new
> > > gTLDs.  First, some working group members suggested that the perceived
> > need
> > > for new gTLDs was illusory.  Public commenters raising this issue
> included
> > > Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade.
> > >
> > > Second, some working group members suggested that an increase in the
> > > number of top-level domains could confuse consumers, because it would be
> > > harder for consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of
> > top-level
> > > domains.  Accordingly, any increase in the number of new gTLDs should be
> > > cautious.  Notwithstanding requests, though, no working group member
> > > offered studies or other evidence backing up this view.
> > >
> > > Finally, some working group members raised trademark policing concerns:
> > > Expansion of the domain space will create additional opportunities for
> the
> > > registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to existing
> > > trademarks.  It will present a risk that bad actors will seek to confuse
> > > consumers by registering SLD strings identical to those registered by
> > > others in other TLDs.  It will likely increase trademark owners'
> policing
> > > costs and the costs of defensive registrations.
> > >
> > > The relationship between domain names and trademark rights presents an
> > > important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed by
> registry
> > > data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms such as the
> > > UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt, as well as by
> > > national legislation. Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are
> > > important ones, and not to be overlooked.  In public comments on the
> > > Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters urged that deployment
> > > should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute
> > > resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and
> > > adoption of a system for protecting famous marks.  They included, among
> > > others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr. Victoria
> Carrington,
> > > AOL, British Telecom, Disney, INTA, Nintendo of America and Time Warner.
> > > Steven Metalitz expressed a similar view: "New gTLD's should be
> > inaugurated
> > > only when, and to the extent that, established and proven procedures are
> > in
> > > place in the existing gTLD's to improve the quality and accessibility
> of
> > > registrant contact data, as well as satisfactory dispute resolution
> > > procedures."  The comments of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business &
> > > Commercial constituency urged, on behalf of the constituency, that
> > > "business requirements such as the effective implementation of the UDRP
> > and
> > > international business practices such as jurisdictional domains"should
> be
> > > addressed satisfactorily before new gTLDs are deployed.  The Software
> and
> > > Information Industry Association noted its support for adding new gTLDs,
> > > but only after the creation of a robust, responsive whois system.
> > >
> > > Other commenters, by contrast, do not believe that trademark-related
> > > concerns justify delay in the introduction of new gTLDs.  These included
> > > Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC) (emphasizing that discussion of
> > > famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD rollout), Kathryn
> Kleiman
> > > (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer
> > > Professionals for Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT, AXISNET (Peruvian
> > > Association of Users and ISPs), the United States Small Business
> > > Administration's Office of Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs,
> > > Tucows.com, InterAccess Company and PSI-Japan.    Raul Echeberria (then
> an
> > > NC member, NCDNHC) filed comments urging that the establishment of new
> > > gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules should be devised to
> > avoid
> > > massive speculative purchases of domains in the new TLDs, or trademark
> > > holders simply duplicating their existing domains.
> > >
> > > Within the working group, the argument that ICANN should impose
> > > substantial delays on the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the
> interest
> > > of adopting or perfecting trademark- protective mechanisms won little
> > > support except from Intellectual Property constituency members.
> > >
> > > Public comments
> > >
> > > The discussion above canvasses many of the public comments received.  By
> > > far the largest set of comments, however, addressed a specific
> > > implementation of the principles discussed above.  Nearly 180 commenters
> > (a
> > > majority of the comments filed) supported the creation of a particular
> > > proposed new domain: .NAA, proposed as a new gTLD to be run by North
> > > American indigenous peoples.
> > >
> > >
> > > Issue Two - What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout?
> > >
> > > Discussions within the working group
> > >
> > > In working group discussions, members of the working group initially
> > > expressed sharply varying positions on the nature of the initial
> rollout.
> > > Some working group members urged that ICANN should immediately announce
> > its
> > > intention to authorize hundreds of new gTLDs over the course of the next
> > > few years.  While ICANN might interrupt that process if it observed
> > serious
> > > problems with the rollout, the presumption would be in favor of
> deployment
> > > to the limits of the technically feasible and operationally stable.  If
> > > ICANN simply deployed a small number of new gTLDs with no commitment to
> > add
> > > more, they argued, the public would have to make registration decisions
> > > based on the possibility that the small number of new gTLDs would be the
> > > only options.  This would give the new registries oligopoly power and
> the
> > > ability to earn greater-than-competitive profits; it would encourage
> > > pre-emptive and speculative registrations based on the possibility of
> > > continued artificial scarcity.  By contrast, they urged, an ICANN
> decision
> > > to deploy a large number of gTLDs would enable competition and a level
> > > playing field: If ICANN announced an intention to add hundreds of new
> > gTLDs
> > > over a three-year period, no new registry could exercise market power
> > based
> > > on the prospect of a continued artificial scarcity of names.
> > >
> > > Other working group members took the opposite approach.  New gTLDs, they
> > > urged, could seriously aggravate the problems facing trademark
> > > rightsholders in the existing domain name space.  Accordingly, they
> urged,
> > > new gTLDs should be introduced only slowly and in a controlled manner,
> and
> > > only after effective trademark protection mechanisms had been
> implemented
> > > and shown to be effective.
> > >
> > > A third set of working group members took still another approach.  In
> the
> > > long term, they stated, it would be desirable for ICANN to allow the
> > > deployment of new gTLDs to the limits of the technically feasible and
> > > operationally stable.  As a short-term matter, however, the immediate
> > > deployment of hundreds of new TLDs would not be prudent.  The
> > operationally
> > > safer course, rather, should be to deploy a smaller number, and to
> follow
> > > that deployment with an evaluation period during which the Internet
> > > community could assess the initial deployment.  ICANN would go on to
> > deploy
> > > additional TLDs if no serious problems arose in the initial rollout.
> > >
> > > The proposal that ICANN start by deploying six to ten new TLDs, followed
> > > by an evaluation period, was crafted as a compromise position to bridge
> > the
> > > gap separating the three groups, and to enable a rough consensus to form
> > in
> > > the middle ground.
> > >
> > > In September 1999, the WG-C co-chairs made the determination that the
> > > working group had reached rough consensus supporting the compromise
> > > position.  Because there had been no formal consensus call, though, the
> > > working group held a vote in December 1999 to reaffirm that consensus.
> > > Following the lead of Working Group B, the working group determined in
> > > advance that a two-thirds margin would constitute adequate evidence of
> > > rough consensus.  The vote reaffirmed the "six to ten, followed by an
> > > evaluation period" compromise position as the rough consensus of the
> > > working group, by a margin of 44 to 20.  (A substantial number of
> working
> > > group members did not cast votes.  In addition, some working group
> > members,
> > > having been solicited to vote, sent messages to the list explaining that
> > > they were declining to take a position at that time, and listed
> themselves
> > > as consequently abstaining.  Neither the non-voters nor the abstainers
> > were
> > > counted in figuring the two-thirds majority.)
> > >
> > > Arguments supporting the consensus position
> > >
> > > The "six to ten, followed by an evaluation period" consensus position
> has
> > > the advantage of being a compromise proposal supported by a wide range
> of
> > > working group members.  In a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization,
> > > broad agreement on a policy path is valuable for its own sake.  The
> sense
> > > of the bulk of the working group is that this proposal strikes an
> > > appropriate balance between slower, contingent deployment of new gTLDs
> and
> > > faster, more nearly certain, deployment.
> > >
> > > Arguments opposing the consensus position
> > >
> > > Three arguments were made in the working group against the proposal.
> The
> > > first was that the contemplated initial deployment was too large;
> rather,
> > > some WG members urged, it would be appropriate, following the
> > > implementation of effective intellectual property protections, for ICANN
> > to
> > > roll out no more than two or three new gTLDs.  The second argument was
> > that
> > > the contemplated initial deployment was too *small*: that, as detailed
> > > above, a deployment of only six to ten, without an upfront commitment to
> > > roll out many more, will be a half-measure that would grant oligopoly
> > power
> > > to the lucky registries selected for the initial rollout.
> > >
> > > Commenters expressed agreement with each of these positions:  Bell
> > > Atlantic and Marilyn Cade supported the introduction of just a single
> new
> > > gTLD at the outset; British Telecom and Time Warner urged the initial
> > > rollout of only a few.  The submission of the WG-C Rapporteur of the
> > > Business & Commercial constituency, on behalf of that constituency,
> urged
> > > that ICANN should start with a "very small number" of new gTLDs.  Other
> > > commenters, including Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr.
> > Victoria
> > > Carrington, AOL, Disney and Nintendo of America, generally endorsed the
> > > statement that the introduction of new gTLDs should be slow and
> > controlled,
> > > and should incorporate an evaluation period.
> > >
> > > By contrast, Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC), Kathryn Kleiman (NC
> > > member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer
> > > Professionals for Social Responsibility, AXISNET, InterWorking Labs,
> > > Tucows.com and InterAccess Company supported the  position that ICANN
> > > should, at the outset, announce a schedule for introducing hundreds of
> new
> > > TLDs.  The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
> > concluded
> > > that ICANN should start with a limited introduction of new TLDs followed
> > by
> > > an evaluation period, but that ICANN should announce in advance that it
> > > would continue with a steady introduction of additional TLDs so long as
> > > pre-announced technical criteria were met.    Raul Echeberria (then an
> NC
> > > member, NCDNHC) stated that ICANN should evaluate the operation and
> market
> > > acceptance of the TLDs added in the initial rollout before creating or
> > > announcing more.  Melbourne IT, PSI-Japan and Register.com all supported
> > > the compromise position of an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs
> > > followed by an evaluation period.
> > >
> > > Most WG members concluded that a deployment of fewer than 6-10 would not
> > > give ICANN the information that it would need to make sensible later
> > > decisions, and was smaller than caution dictated.  At the same time,
> most
> > > WG-C members felt that an initial commitment to many more than 6-10
> would
> > > not be operationally sound.  Until we see the consequences for the
> domain
> > > name space of adding new gTLDs, there are advantages to a more
> circumspect
> > > path.
> > >
> > > The final objection raised was that the consensus agreement answered the
> > > wrong question: The working group, said some, should not be addressing
> the
> > > number of new gTLDs at all before resolving such issues as whether the
> new
> > > top-level domains should be general-purpose (like .com),
> special-purpose,
> > > or some combination of the two.  These issues are discussed in this
> report
> > > under the heading of "ongoing work," and certainly it would not have
> been
> > > inappropriate for the WG to have sought to reach conclusions on those
> > > matters before discussing Issue Two.  But most members of the working
> > group
> > > concluded that the size of the initial rollout could and should be
> > > addressed first, before resolving less tractable issues.
> > >
> > > Ongoing work
> > >
> > >         Remaining questions before the working group include how the new
> > > gTLDs deployed in the initial rollout, and their associated registries,
> > > should be selected.  In initial discussion and straw polls on this
> issue,
> > > working group members fell into several camps.  One group urged that
> ICANN
> > > should first select new gTLD strings, and only then call for
> applications
> > > from registries wishing to operate those TLDs.  A second group urged
> that
> > > ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective
> > criteria,
> > > and allow the registries to choose their own gTLDs in response to market
> > > considerations.  A third group suggested that registries should apply
> > > describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process would
> > > then make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the
> > > registry and its proposed gTLD. The working group considered the third
> > > option, viewed as a possible middle ground, as a consensus call,
> relating
> > > only to the initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs.
> > >
> > > Thirteen "yes" votes were cast in that consensus call, and five "no"
> > > votes.  While the votes cast were markedly in favor, it's the view of
> the
> > > co-chair that a finding of rough consensus, at this date, would be
> > > premature.  Only a small number of people voted:  In contrast to the 64
> > > votes cast on the consensus call relating to the size of the initial
> > > deployment (well over half of the membership of the WG at the time),
> only
> > > eighteen people chose to cast a vote on this matter.  Even some active
> > > participants in the discussion of the consensus call did not cast votes.
> > > This makes the vote less reliable as a gauge of the views of the working
> > > group as a whole.  Other factors making it difficult to draw an
> > unambiguous
> > > consensus from the vote include the facts that some of those who voted
> > > "yes" added additional caveats conditioning their support, and that
> voters
> > > may have had varying understandings as to how the term "registry" in the
> > > consensus call should be understood, and what an application would
> entail.
> > > ("No" voters urged both that the consensus proposal would give too much
> > > discretionary authority to ICANN, and that it would preclude ICANN from
> > > considering gTLD proposals that came from entities other than would-be
> > > registries.)
> > >
> > > It appears to be the sense of the working group, among both supporters
> and
> > > opponents of the consensus call, that ICANN's selection process should
> be
> > > procedurally regular and guided by pre-announced selection criteria.
> > > Further, it appears to be the sense of the working group that the
> > namespace
> > > should have room for both limited-purpose gTLDs (which have a charter
> that
> > > substantially limits who can register there) and open, general-purpose
> > > gTLDs.  The working group extensively discussed a set of eight
> principles,
> > > drafted by Philip Sheppard (NC member, Business) and Kathryn Kleiman (NC
> > > member, NCDNHC), against which applications for new TLDs might be
> judged.
> > > The proposed principles, in their current iteration, incorporate the
> > > keywords Certainty, Honesty, Differentiation, Competition, Diversity,
> > > Semantics, Multiplicity and Simplicity.  However, the working group has
> > not
> > > so far achieved a consensus on the content or usefulness of the
> > principles.
> > >
> > > Conclusion
> > >
> > > In summary, Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues.
> The
> > > first is that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is
> that
> > > ICANN should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout
> of
> > > six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  The working
> group
> > > is continuing to address other issues, including the mechanism through
> > > which new gTLDs and registries should be selected.  While there is
> > > sentiment within the working group for the compromise position that
> > > registries should apply describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an
> ICANN
> > > body or process should make selections taking into account the
> > > characteristics of both the registries and their proposed gTLDs, a
> finding
> > > of rough consensus on this point would be premature.
> > >
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > A detailed summary of the public comments on the working group's Oct.
> 23,
> > > 1999 interim report is available at
> > > <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00490.html>.
> > >
> >


Zakaria AMAR, Ph.D
phone : 222 29 08 66 (Office)
        222 29 11 57 (Home)
Fax:    222 25 37 33