Hello Marilyn,

The key point I am trying to make is that staff could select only European ccTLDs -- it might appear to be 'representative' but really isn't. I am quite aware of the great diversity of the ccTLD community, since I used to represent a MNC that registered in over 35 ccTLDs, and when I co-chaired the WHOIS TF, we talked to probably 10-12 different ccTLDs and learned a great deal about their diversity. The mere difference of civil law versus common law creates a diversity. And the different models -- strong government involvement, no government involvement, benevolent government involvement -- and other models still emerging... all speak to the need to have 'representative ness' not only geographical, but beyond that...

I will update the motion with your suggestions about having a suitably diverse range.

So, not willing to give up that criteria. I know that you are very familiar with .au, but .au is one among many different models. I think the point is to create a 'diverse' and representative consultation -- and NOT to restrict ourselves to only those TLDS that we presently 'know' as individual councilors.

Agreed. Incidentally, Melbourne IT is a global registrar, and registers in over 200 cctlds for our corporate customers (I think we support close to 300 when you consider second levels like .com.au, .co.jp etc) so I am also personally aware of the diversity that you describe. Regards, Bruce Tonkin