Re: [council] Procedural concerns with gtld-com.
I agree with Thomas's "suggestion" and would go further and propose
this as a formal motion, to be considered at the May 22 Council
meeting.
In parliamentary procedure terms, this is a substitute motion,
which would require first discussion and debate as to the relative
merits of the original proposal (Philip's draft) and the substitute
proposal (Roessler's proposal below).
Not only myself, but the NCUC as a whole fully supports the
subsitute proposal.
--MM
>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 05/18/03 09:13AM >>>
I would respectfully suggest that the Council opt to transmit to the
Board only a brief answer to the question asked in resolution 2.151,
namely (in the words of the draft final report):
Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up
approach with names proposed by the interested parties to
ICANN. There is no support for a pre-determined list of new
names that putative registries would bid for. Expansion
should be demand-driven.
The remaining questions addressed in the new gTLD committee's report
should be subject to the formal policy-development process specified
in the bylaws.