RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January

["Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

I strongly support this view and Bruce's detailed approach to a
comprehensive consultation that actually seeks public input on the
policy issue itself.  

Bruce's dual-pronged approach, i.e.
- seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy
should be in response to the terms of reference, 
- seeking input from the public on what the policy should be
............ is logical.

I also support the idea of an online event or discussion of some sort.

Marilyn made a very practical suggestion that we draft some specific
questions. Then in subsequent e-mails, there was reference to posted
questions. Clearly, I am missing something here because I can't find the
questions.  Would someone please point me to the posting?  Thank you.

Best regards,
Maureen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:49 AM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9
January

If that is what we want we should make this very clear to the public so 
that we will reiceive the input we are looking for and not i.e. comments
in regard to the TOR itself. Having the public focus on the real policy
questions will certainly raise the quality of the comments quite a bit.

Best,

tom

Am 19.12.2005 schrieb Bret Fausett:
> So Bruce is correct: we are asking for substantive answers to the 
> questions posted. These comments will be synthesized into an initial 
> public comment report that will become part of the PDP record. I know 
> that the ALAC intends to submit initial comments during this period.
> 
>           Bret
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w