RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bret, I am not so sure that we did answer those questions. I thought we did
proof of concept TLDs, and then sponsored gTLDS. /both were limited in their
role in an overall consideration, but contribute lessons learned. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:59 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO
Council

My understanding is that the GNSO and the Board previously answered the 
question of whether we should have new gTLDs ("yes") and how they should 
be introduced ("in a measured and responsible manner"). So I would agree 
that insofar as those questions are concerned, we do no need to revisit 
the past. There are a number of areas, however, in which the GNSO could 
provide useful policy work. For instance, what escrow and data retention 
policy should new registries have to meet so that the damage to 
registrants of a registry failure can be minimized? But is that policy 
or implementation? I don't know that it matters much if we *want* to 
take it on. Perhaps we can use time on Thursday's call to list some of 
these things we'd like to see addressed.

       Bret