I meant to comment on Bret's note before. Sorry for the lateness of the posting. I am very concerned about the concept of "monetizing the TLD space" as seems to be implied in the paper. I recall we spent considerable debate on this concept in the days of the IFWP, and have addressed in various ways since, even if indirectly. One of the challenges that has emerged elsewhere, that is part of the threat to ICANN, is that some entities believe that the technical elements -- IP addresses, TLDS, even ccTLDs -- are a source of revenue, rather than a resource used for the good of the Internet community. I have thought that the community still supported a cost recovery model. I know I can still speak for at least one multi national corporation on that point, when it comes to both gTLDs and IP addresses. :-) If ICANN is suggesting a monetizing of the DNS so to speak, that really opens up a lot of issues -- and in my view, heightens the interest and inclination of some governments to seek more regulatory oversight of ICANN. I will also comment, as I have before, on the idea that the priority for a registry operator must be first and foremost, technical and operational capability, and stability. That is not to say that ICANN can prevent a registry from "falling over", but indeed, there must be safeguards for the registrant -- and a "adopted child" approach for the registry zone file, if one does fall over. To say that is not ICANN's responsibility to address in a pragmatic manner, raises yet new questions to global business users. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:34 AM To: Philip Sheppard Cc: olof.nordling@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft staff paper on "New TLD Questions" - CORRECTION NEEDED Philip is correct, and I support his recommended change. I would add that the matrix concept itself is problematic, as some of the groups to be consulted are too vague and sufficiently far outside ICANN's control to make inclusion in a decision matrix appropriate (e.g. "academics," "trade organizations"). We should certainly strive for broad outreach, but vaguely defined groups aren't in the critical path of the consultation process. As currently phrased, the questions in the matrix also assume that certain controversial questions already have been resolved in a particular way. For example: "Determine appropriate uses for one-time, positive revenue derived from allocation process." I'm not certain we will recommend that ICANN charge registry fees in excess of its actual costs. Previous allocation efforts have been based on a cost-recovery method. I am certainly aware of the "auction" concept, but I think the question is still open as to whether the wealthiest registry operator is necessary the best choice. I expect that developing nations will have significant concerns about allocating global resources in a way that takes businesses based in their countries out of the running. I would recommend separating the matrix from the list of questions, if not deleting it entirely. Bret Philip Sheppard wrote:

Olof, thank you for the posting of this paper. I and my constituency will spend time to fully review but for now I believe there is one essential correction that needs to be made *_before it goes any further_*.

The GNSO is the policy development body on gTLD matters within ICANN. The GNSO is not one of a range of bodies to be consulted. The consultation of other bodies is being done to inform the GNSO.

Please change the matrix of contributions to show the GNSO sits at the top of the input tree and all other consultations feed into policy development within the GNSO. Thank you.

Philip Sheppard