Hello All, Just a redminder that in the Council meeting in Montreal on 24 June 2003, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030624.GNSOmontreal-minutes.html the Council accepted the following report on new gtlds: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030612.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v7.h tml The council decided that: 1. Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up approach with names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN. Expansion should be demand-driven. There is no support for a pre-determined list of new names that putative registries would bid for. 2. In line with ideas set-out in the Lynn paper March 1003[1] the committee endorsed the concept of a set of objective criteria that should be met in any future expansion. The development of this set of objective criteria should be the subject of a new Policy Development Process (PDP). Possible criteria for this PDP are listed below together with some strategies which point to practical, non-burdensome ways in which they can be met. I believe that Milton's motion below is consistent with the decision above. Regards, Bruce
-----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 12:57 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu Subject: [council] Notice of Motion
This motion is intended to be considered at the Carthage Meeting:
"In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for new TLD registries."