Re: [council] Endorsement of final WG C work

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Jonathan's clarification of the WG C process is absolutely right and
helpful.

The question previously before the WG and now before the NC is do you
believe in a free for all in relation to domain names or do we all have some
concept of what those names should be?
Do we support a dot con - confusingly similar to dot com?
Do we support a dot kodak - not associated with kodak?
Do we support dot cars and dot autos and dot motors all co-existing with no
concept behind all three?
Do we support the net user and consumer confusion that would result?

The principles capture some of these common sense points. They were
extensively debated within WG C, re drafted after debate for clarity and
they got wide support. They encapsulate in a few phrases alot of the
underlying sense of structure held by many participants in the WG and
elsewhere. They are flexible and open enough to allow for open domains and
topic specific chartered domains.

It would be disappointing if the NC did not support this vital output from
one of our own work groups. It would also be disappointing for the Board if
after a year's discussion the only conclusion is "that there should be new
names" which is the essence of our part one statement without giving the
Board the benefit of this new agreement as to ways in which those new names
can be achieved.

Please support the earlier statement I posted. It moves us forward and
provides guidance - which is exactly the role of a supporting body like the
NC.

Philip