Re: [council] suggested draft resolution for today's NC call

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

I believe this resolution does a fine job of both summarizing where we are
at this point in the process in that :
1. we have received the report of working group "c" and it has been posted
for review and comment by the community
2. we as names council members have had the opportunity to review on an
ongoing basis the comments as well as receive comments from our respective
constituencies as well

this resolutions does a commendable job of fulfilling our task of stating
where the consensus lies at this point in the process.

I feel that the general foundations of this resolution captures quite
clearly the general consensus and should prove to be a very useful tool in
assisting the board in moving forward

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
To: 'names council' <council@dnso.org>
Cc: 'Andrew McLaughlin' <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; 'Louis Touton'
<touton@icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: [council] suggested draft resolution for today's NC call


> Dear NC Members -
> For today's NC conference call below is a suggested draft resolution I've
> been thinking about to help guide our discussion.
> Look forward to speaking with all on the NC call -
> Best regards,
> Theresa
>
>
>
> "The Names Council has considered the submittals and reports of Working
> Groups B and C and the various comments submitted on them. We have
reviewed
> these reports keeping in mind that the principle goals in the management
of
> the domain-name system should be to ensure stability of the Internet as
well
> as make it easier for users to locate the appropriate Internet sites they
> are seeking.
> The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and
related
> comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of
new
> gTLDs in a careful and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore
> recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the
> introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due
> regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly
> registration of names during the initial phases, including minimizing
their
> use to extract additional resources from those seeking to protect
> intellectual property rights; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out
> infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the
need
> for ensuring consumer confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD
> and the DNS as a whole.
> Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we
recommend
> to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced
> initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains
> be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The
Names
> Council recognizes that the WG C report indicates that several types of
> domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being:
fully
> open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top-level domains with
> limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation
> should promote competition in the domain-name registration business at the
> registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any
> roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a
> responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring
that
> there is close coordination with Internet protocols and standards.
> To assist the Board in the task of introducing new TLDs, the Names Council
> recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from
parties
> seeking to operate any new TLD registry, with an indication as to how they
> propose to ensure to promote these values.
> We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of
> participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want
to
> thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that
were
> referred to them. We urge those participants to continue to contribute
their
> expertise in these issues as these matters move on to consideration by the
> Board and implementation. In particular, should Working Group B complete a
> final report, it should submit that to the ICANN Board before the public
> comment period leading up to the Yokohama ICANN meeting. We intend to
> monitor future progress and stand ready to assist the ICANN Board and
Staff
> on these issue as appropriate in the future."
>