Phillip -- I have not entered into this discussion, but I must correct
you on one point. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that I or the
Board favor or disfavor a "taxonomic rationalization". That does not mean that
anyone rejects such a notion, but it would be a mistake to precede from any
basis of assuming that any of us have any preference. There are very powerful
arguments in favor of no structure, amny of which were voiced in the Public
Forum in Amsterdam.
The Board (including me or my successor) are very much interested in the
views of the Names Council on this subject. Jordyn is quite correct in
assuming that my report and comments were the driving force behind the wording
in the resolution. On the other hand, there is no need for the Committee to
take too constructionist a view. The Names Council is of course always
free to express its opinion on any subject within its charter. The Board is
seeking advice, not policy input at this stage.
Thanks
Stuart
At 5:20 PM +0100 2/13/03, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Jordyn,
I believe that we are free to
explore versions of structure (though do not recommend we do so in
abstracto) and that the CEO and the Board lean toward, as you identify
"a taxonomic rationalization".
A taxonomic rationalisation
is an objective and a a pre-determined list is but one strategy to get
there. On the call there was support for (your proposal?) to not have a
pre-determined list due to the problems this would cause. An alternative
strategy is to allow sponsors/registries to propose a series of
differentiated gTLDs. If each new gTLD were differentiated to its
predecessors, a market-driven taxonomy would develop over time. If the
committee like that idea, it is then the task to define the criteria for
differentiation.
Philip
--
__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and
CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA
90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email:
lynn@xxxxxxxxx