Hi Bruce, As agreed at the conference call today, I'll expand from excerpts to full texts on the resolutions. My sole reason for doing excerpts was for the sake of brevity and it ended up 9 pages long anyway... Now, there is no attempt to "creating" rationales in the paper (which I append for the information of those cc:d so they see what we're talking about) but an attempt to assist in responding to the recurring question in LUX, notably "Is there a rationale for introducing new TLDs?" as the introduction states. Best regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:51 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Paul Twomey; Chris Disspain Subject: [council] Regarding Olof's paper on "rationale" for new TLDs Hello Olof, I am still working my way through your paper and the references it contains. It is a great start. Rather than trying to create a rationale for new TLDs at this stage, I suggest we first collect the full text all the previous Board, Names Council, and GNSO Council resolutions together. We made then decide that the next step is to create the rationale. For example in Section 4 of your report you quote the first paragraph of the Names Council statement of 18/19 April 2005. I think the second paragraph also helps understand some of the past decisions. Ie: http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#18/19April2000NCStatemen t "The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and related comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole. "Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report indicates that several types of domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top-level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation should promote competition in the domain-name registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards. "To assist the Board in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to how they propose to ensure to promote these values." For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph above states: Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. So for now lets update the paper with the full text of the previous Names Council, Board, and GNSO resolutions. Regards, Bruce