I am happy to see progress regarding the introduction of new TLDs with this staff paper.
Here are my four comments:
 I am involved in this subject throught CORE (Council of Registrars) since 1998. I can summarize that most of the questions are very old and are repeated and discussed again and again. And the answers are repeated again and again from the same lobbies and mostly from the same poeple.
My advice: Do not waste too many time in discussion this questions. Speed up the process. The only new areas I can see are IDNs and the auction modells for awarding a TLD string to a registry.
 "Too many cooks spoil the broth". In my opinion, the x-axis of the matrix has too many participants.
My advice: Simply delete the following participants. I like all of them, but they should be represented in the other constituencies: Comsumer Orgs, Academics, Think Tanks / Experts (what experts are not involved in ICANN until now?). The GAC should be reduced to the needed minimum. E.g., in my opinion they could not give helpful advice to question 4 (TLD operators).
 In the discussion about new TLDs we should keep in mind that TLDs could be used for *much* more than addressing websites and emails.
My advice: Do not shorten the discussion of new TLDs to the question, whether a good name is already taken by another company and we have to enlarge the namespace. TLDs could by used as an address schema in many areas (financial world, product codes, p2p communication etc). There are innovative people with good ideas around ;-)
 In the current discussion the term "success of a TLD" is sometimes shortened to the number of domains registered.
My advice: Add a question, how the participants define "success of a TLD".
-- _____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Elmar.Knipp@xxxxxxxx Fax: +49 231 9703-200