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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that we are expecting some work from staff to help us look at what
the present state of affairs: I would find it helpful to have a summary of
what has been done: from board resolutions, to our resolutions,
recommendations, and any policy we have created. That shouldn't be too hard
to do from the records of the minutes, board minutes, board resolutions. 

I think we have our own record of minutes as well that contributes, and we
have the transcripts from meetings, where in the public forums, it will be
apparent what was discussed, and then what action was taken. 

Such a history, in summary form, in chronological order, should provide a
summary for us to start from. 

Given all else that faces us as a Council, and my "day job", I find myself
challenged to focus on this research personally, and look forward to the
work of the staff that I believe has been requested. 

Before I engage in interpretation on what "we" have done so far, that
summary will be needed.

Make sense to others? 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:00 AM
To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO
Council

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