Re: [gtld-council] NCUC Statement on new gTLDs]
- To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] NCUC Statement on new gTLDs]
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:12:40 -0500
I'm somewhat confused by all of the submissions. My understanding is
that Council has requested two separate types of input. a) a response to
the questions posed by our TOR, and b) a more general call for white
papers on the subject. Generally, I was expecting constituency input to
be directed to the public comment process with independent and
individual submissions being directed to the call for papers.
Is there any value sorting through these and ensuring that they were
submitted to the proper process? For instance, I don't believe that the
NCUC submission (as an example) is reflected in the public comments
archive. Given that the public comment process, and its archive, figure
centrally in the formal PDP, I would imagine that we would want to
ensure that at least constituency commentary is reflected there.
I could also use some clarification regarding the role that this call
for papers will play in the policy development process as it moves
forward - as it currently stands, it appears to me that we have simply
bifurcated the public comments process - and I'm certain that this
wasn't the intent.
Kindly find attached the above metioned statement that I wish to
submit to the GNSO on behalf of the NCUC.
Please note that it is _nearly_ a consensus position, failing one
voice. In any case, this is the aproved result by an overwhelming
majority from our discussions on the topic.