Bret, I am not so sure that we did answer those questions. I thought we did proof of concept TLDs, and then sponsored gTLDS. /both were limited in their role in an overall consideration, but contribute lessons learned. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:59 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council My understanding is that the GNSO and the Board previously answered the question of whether we should have new gTLDs ("yes") and how they should be introduced ("in a measured and responsible manner"). So I would agree that insofar as those questions are concerned, we do no need to revisit the past. There are a number of areas, however, in which the GNSO could provide useful policy work. For instance, what escrow and data retention policy should new registries have to meet so that the damage to registrants of a registry failure can be minimized? But is that policy or implementation? I don't know that it matters much if we *want* to take it on. Perhaps we can use time on Thursday's call to list some of these things we'd like to see addressed. Bret