Re: [nc-intake] Suggestion to revisit the process for new gTLDs

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Bonjour Philip,

I agree the business plan has it in a very high level language.

My note is much more specific, reflects an emergency situation
we faced in Melbourne, and also try to put together
the legacy gTLD with new ones in terms of contracts with ICANN.

I trust the NC will consider the issue appropriately.
My only suggestion would be for timeframe: starting now 2001.

Elisabeth

> From philip.sheppard@aim.be Wed Mar 21 18:41 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <034601c0b22e$16490da0$6501a8c0@aim.be>
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> Cc: <nc-intake@dnso.org>
> Subject: Re: [nc-intake] Suggestion to revisit the process for new gTLDs
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:40:57 +0100
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> 
> Elisabeth,
> I do agree with your sentiments. Do you think this is captured by the
> current wording in the business plan.
> Philip
> 
> 
> 2. TLDs. a) Review and evaluate the new TLD registries with respect to their
> impact on net users and the creation of a stable domain name system with
> high user confidence. Propose changes for consideration by the ICANN Board.
> Timeframe: 2002.
> b) Review and evaluate the selection criteria for additional new applicants
> for new TLDs. Propose changes and roll out schedule for consideration by the
> ICANN Board. Timeframe: 2002.
> 
> Strategies
> 2.1 Establish an interim committee to propose terms of reference for an NC
> task force or other group.
> 
> 
>