Re: [gtld-council] NCUC Statement on new gTLDs]

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All -

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.

Regards,

-ross

GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear Olof,
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mawaki