[wg-c] Proposal of statement to be forwarded to ICANN

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi,
	I have the feeling that all of the options about how many new gTLDs,
at what speed, qualifications for being a registry, who gets to choose the
letters that make up the TLD, ownership of the TLDs, rebid or not of
registries etc etc etc... *ALL* revolve around the same type of problems.
We keep getting blocked time and time again (personally I feel that this WG
is incorrectly setup as far as proportions go, but I'm sure everyone feels
the same in their favour).

	It is clear to me that the same questions that we are toyinbg around
with are applicable to NSI. It is also clear that negotiations are going on
between NSF/DoC/ICANN/NSI as to how NSI will be allowed to act in the
future.

	Whatever decisions we might come to agreement on in this WG (and I'm
incredibly pessimistic as to that happening on its own), would be completely
overturned should the resulting status be different to what we had
anticipated in any conclusion.

	Under this scenario, I feel that the only thing that this WG can do
is actually return a statement to ICANN demanding clarification and
finalisation on the NSI situation before we can move forward. Without a
clear standing on how NSI (registry) is supposed to act, we're engaging in
continuous arm-flapping exercises.

Comments?

Yours, John Broomfield.

P.S. Before anyone (and I'm thinking of one person in particular) jumps on
me saying "aha, you just want to stall, don't you", this is *NOT* what I
want. The above statement is not something I like, but rather what I feel is
an objective assessment of our current situation.