RE: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, I agree with your added recommendation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amadeu Abril i Abril [mailto:Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:09 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: council@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] gTLD registries' paper on new TLds


Jeff,

I think that this revised version is much better, since it mentions 
application provide3rs along ISPs (in my experience, the former are more 
responsible of communication failures attached to new TLDs thatn the 
latter). It also helps that it does not sound anymore as "pointing the 
finger" to a given constituency...

A couple of suggestions:

* in the recommendation section, I think that we could/should add an 
action item for other consituencies, such as distributing a sort of 
"revised DNS primer" or just a remidner of what the statement says to 
ISPs but also applicati9on providers and e-commerce site operators, so 
as to bring their attention to this point.

* the follwoing paragraph confuses me:

"Prior to November 2000, the list of valid TLDs very seldom changed, and 
only a few ccTLDs were added to the list, including Palestine (.ps) and 
Afghanistan (.af)."

In fact, prior to November 2000 the list changed much more than after 
that date... even if it was quite stable since late 1997. The reference 
to .af is in any misleading, as it was created in 1997, among many, many 
others. In fact, as far as I can remember, the only ccTLD effectively 
added duing ICANN existance is .ps (with .eu in the pipeline, but not 
yet active, as .tl  which should replace .tp, but which  is apparently 
in a limbo somewhere between ISO and IANA....). .af had a difficult 
life, including disappearences and redelgations, but it was created well 
  before 2000.

Amadeu