FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council
Dear colleagues, My posting to the public forum on the new gTLD questions is posted below for your information. I look forward to the discussion on this topic on Thursday. I have just reread the relevant transcript of the Board's public forum to refresh my memory on the discussion. Of course, there is also the discussion that took place in our own meetings to inform our discussion on Thursday as well. _____ From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:26 AM To: 'new-gtld-questions@icann.org' Cc: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Paul Twomey'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Bruce Tonkin' Subject: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council This topic will be discussed at the gNSO Council meeting on Thursday, July 28. At Luxembourg, there were several discussions regarding the role of the gNSO in making policy for gTLDs and how the staff paper fits into that process. This topic came up in the board/council breakfast; in the Cross Constituency meeting with the Board, and in the public forum. In my view, as an elected BC rep to the gNSO Council, I consider the introduction of new gTLDs a policy issue for gTLD space. I believe that the gNSO Council should develop a working plan, and include in that plan the appropriate consultation with the community, other SOs, and advisory committees, including seeking any necessary external studies or advice to fully advise the development of policy in this area. Thus, I will not make substantive comments in this forum. I look forward to the discussion in the gNSO council on establishing a path forward to undertake the necessary work, which should include appropriate outreach and consultation with other entities, both internal and external, as appropriate.. Marilyn Cade
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marilyn - Before we claim the issue of new gTLDs as a policy issue, it is incumbent upon us to consider existing policy in this area and determine a plan of work that moves us closer to our goals. You make some excellent suggestions regarding specific action items that might be included in an eventual action plan, but this is, in my opinion, putting the tactical cart before the strategic horse. Let us first consider what work has been completed, evaluate how this work fits into the long-term goals of the GNSO and then incorporate this thinking into a project plan that we can execute against. After having completed this "survey" of the policy-scape, we may find that there is very little for the GNSO to do and in fact, the current actions of the board and staff are consistent with an implementation track initiated by the prior policy work of the GNSO. My personal suspicion is that there is some, but not much, policy work for the GNSO to do in this area, but that there may be some additional work required to provide the staff and board with additional guidance concerning our prior work. On 26/07/2005 1:45 AM Marilyn Cade noted that;
Dear colleagues,
My posting to the public forum on the new gTLD questions is posted below for your information. I look forward to the discussion on this topic on Thursday. I have just reread the relevant transcript of the Board?s public forum to refresh my memory on the discussion. Of course, there is also the discussion that took place in our own meetings to inform our discussion on Thursday as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:26 AM *To:* 'new-gtld-questions@icann.org' *Cc:* 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Paul Twomey'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Bruce Tonkin' *Subject:* the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council
This topic will be discussed at the gNSO Council meeting on Thursday, July 28. At Luxembourg, there were several discussions regarding the role of the gNSO in making policy for gTLDs and how the staff paper fits into that process. This topic came up in the board/council breakfast; in the Cross Constituency meeting with the Board, and in the public forum.
In my view, as an elected BC rep to the gNSO Council, I consider the introduction of new gTLDs a policy issue for gTLD space. I believe that the gNSO Council should develop a working plan, and include in that plan the appropriate consultation with the community, other SOs, and advisory committees, including seeking any necessary external studies or advice to fully advise the development of policy in this area.
Thus, I will not make substantive comments in this forum. I look forward to the discussion in the gNSO council on establishing a path forward to undertake the necessary work, which should include appropriate outreach and consultation with other entities, both internal and external, as appropriate..
Marilyn Cade
- -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC5jn76sL06XjirooRAmU7AJsHdL3JRERGXlDLQb9/THcbVWzByACcC52H 1g/tEU+ppDS7+Kvcyc0erIY= =V9A1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ross, I am a little confused about your email below. I support taking an assessment of where we are/have been/and have said, so to speak. And I thought we had agreed to that and were going to look to give guidance to staff on beginning to gather that. I also think that the work that staff has done to date will be inputs into a process that Council should manage. Past work/policy, etc. would also be input. However, you seem to be saying that all the Council should do is to provide a little advise to the "staff and board". I am not in agreement with that. I see the challenge and work differently than you do, but am happy to find time to talk to you, or others, online or by phone, before the Council call, to seek to find a better understanding. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:26 AM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marilyn - Before we claim the issue of new gTLDs as a policy issue, it is incumbent upon us to consider existing policy in this area and determine a plan of work that moves us closer to our goals. You make some excellent suggestions regarding specific action items that might be included in an eventual action plan, but this is, in my opinion, putting the tactical cart before the strategic horse. Let us first consider what work has been completed, evaluate how this work fits into the long-term goals of the GNSO and then incorporate this thinking into a project plan that we can execute against. After having completed this "survey" of the policy-scape, we may find that there is very little for the GNSO to do and in fact, the current actions of the board and staff are consistent with an implementation track initiated by the prior policy work of the GNSO. My personal suspicion is that there is some, but not much, policy work for the GNSO to do in this area, but that there may be some additional work required to provide the staff and board with additional guidance concerning our prior work. On 26/07/2005 1:45 AM Marilyn Cade noted that;
Dear colleagues,
My posting to the public forum on the new gTLD questions is posted below for your information. I look forward to the discussion on this topic on Thursday. I have just reread the relevant transcript of the Board?s public forum to refresh my memory on the discussion. Of course, there is also the discussion that took place in our own meetings to inform our discussion on Thursday as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:26 AM *To:* 'new-gtld-questions@icann.org' *Cc:* 'Kurt Pritz'; 'Paul Twomey'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Bruce Tonkin' *Subject:* the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council
This topic will be discussed at the gNSO Council meeting on Thursday, July 28. At Luxembourg, there were several discussions regarding the role of the gNSO in making policy for gTLDs and how the staff paper fits into that process. This topic came up in the board/council breakfast; in the Cross Constituency meeting with the Board, and in the public forum.
In my view, as an elected BC rep to the gNSO Council, I consider the introduction of new gTLDs a policy issue for gTLD space. I believe that the gNSO Council should develop a working plan, and include in that plan the appropriate consultation with the community, other SOs, and advisory committees, including seeking any necessary external studies or advice to fully advise the development of policy in this area.
Thus, I will not make substantive comments in this forum. I look forward to the discussion in the gNSO council on establishing a path forward to undertake the necessary work, which should include appropriate outreach and consultation with other entities, both internal and external, as appropriate..
Marilyn Cade
- -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC5jn76sL06XjirooRAmU7AJsHdL3JRERGXlDLQb9/THcbVWzByACcC52H 1g/tEU+ppDS7+Kvcyc0erIY= =V9A1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26/07/2005 4:23 PM Marilyn Cade noted that;
Ross, I am a little confused about your email below.
My apologies. Let me try and clarify. The DNSO has previously made policy recommendations in this area. These recommendations have been adopted by the board. They are binding policy. The default action for this council should not be the creation of new policy. We should only act in instances where new policy needs to be created or existing policy needs modification. Nor should we attempt to manage the implementation of existing policy - this is a staff responsibility. If the community needs new policy or the staff needs guidance regarding existing policy, then we have work to do. I'm doubtful that a new policy development process is required. I'm equally aware that the staff and board probably needs more than "a little advice" from the GNSO. The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle. So, let's have a discussion about what work items we need to undertake and avoid duplication of current and past effort. Just because the Council *can* make policy, doesn't mean we that we *need* to - especially when we already have done so. I am open to being convinced that we need a PDP on the subject, but I have yet to hear any argument to support this course of action. - -- -rwr Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC5qtW6sL06XjirooRAufZAJ91Wm7r/OUoVXwaQMggkL4ckeHfswCfee/7 ejC1pIpfzTSqFda14xONi7U= =1rZL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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
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
I believe that we are expecting some work from staff to help us look at what the present state of affairs: I would find it helpful to have a summary of what has been done: from board resolutions, to our resolutions, recommendations, and any policy we have created. That shouldn't be too hard to do from the records of the minutes, board minutes, board resolutions. I think we have our own record of minutes as well that contributes, and we have the transcripts from meetings, where in the public forums, it will be apparent what was discussed, and then what action was taken. Such a history, in summary form, in chronological order, should provide a summary for us to start from. Given all else that faces us as a Council, and my "day job", I find myself challenged to focus on this research personally, and look forward to the work of the staff that I believe has been requested. Before I engage in interpretation on what "we" have done so far, that summary will be needed. Make sense to others? -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:00 AM To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council 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
Marilyn and all, Indeed, you are SO right - the thought of such a compilation emerged at a contact with Bruce on Monday, and here comes a first draft for your reading enjoyment, see attachment. Regards Olof -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:14 PM To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council I believe that we are expecting some work from staff to help us look at what the present state of affairs: I would find it helpful to have a summary of what has been done: from board resolutions, to our resolutions, recommendations, and any policy we have created. That shouldn't be too hard to do from the records of the minutes, board minutes, board resolutions. I think we have our own record of minutes as well that contributes, and we have the transcripts from meetings, where in the public forums, it will be apparent what was discussed, and then what action was taken. Such a history, in summary form, in chronological order, should provide a summary for us to start from. Given all else that faces us as a Council, and my "day job", I find myself challenged to focus on this research personally, and look forward to the work of the staff that I believe has been requested. Before I engage in interpretation on what "we" have done so far, that summary will be needed. Make sense to others? -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:00 AM To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is a great primer Olof - thank you for putting it together so quickly. I'm certain that this will be a central document in Council discussions tomorrow and moving forward. Thanks again, - -rwr On 27/07/2005 8:38 AM Olof Nordling noted that;
Marilyn and all, Indeed, you are SO right - the thought of such a compilation emerged at a contact with Bruce on Monday, and here comes a first draft for your reading enjoyment, see attachment. Regards Olof
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:14 PM To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council
I believe that we are expecting some work from staff to help us look at what the present state of affairs: I would find it helpful to have a summary of what has been done: from board resolutions, to our resolutions, recommendations, and any policy we have created. That shouldn't be too hard to do from the records of the minutes, board minutes, board resolutions.
I think we have our own record of minutes as well that contributes, and we have the transcripts from meetings, where in the public forums, it will be apparent what was discussed, and then what action was taken.
Such a history, in summary form, in chronological order, should provide a summary for us to start from.
Given all else that faces us as a Council, and my "day job", I find myself challenged to focus on this research personally, and look forward to the work of the staff that I believe has been requested.
Before I engage in interpretation on what "we" have done so far, that summary will be needed.
Make sense to others?
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:00 AM To: 'Bret Fausett'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] FW: the topic of new gTLDs and the role of gNSO Council
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
- -- -rwr Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross Skydasher: A great way to start your day My weblog: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC563r6sL06XjirooRAl1CAJ9yzUAjYpns1+ujvZQZ/v5xcOATkgCfcCKI 1l29boExYkWwl/9USR49aCQ= =8gWA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 27 jul 2005, at 08.38, Olof Nordling wrote:
and here comes a first draft for your reading enjoyment, see attachment.
<Rationale for new TLDs.doc>
Thank you. I have some initial questions on my first reading of this, very useful, synopsis. If any of these questions is naive, please forgive me. While very interesting, it is a lot to digest. And with the meeting tomorrow, I figured I better get my questions aired while there was still daylight somewhere. 1. The phrase "Where feasible and appropriate", and other similar exit clauses are used frequently. Is there some normalized way of making and substantiating a decision to deviate due to feasible and appropriate circumstances? Or is this completely at the board's discretion. I.e. can they deviate from the by-laws and consensus decisions whenever they, independently, decide that is is appropriate to do so? 2. I found it interesting that a policy body recommended that the Board establish a policy. On reading the recommendations themselves, they seemed to offer more guidelines for policy as opposed to specific policy recommendations. Is this the normal way in which the policy councils interact with the Board and Staff? Should it be? 3. The Yokahama minutes seem to indicate that this decision applies to a pilot or proof of concept.
The extent to which selection of the proposal would lead to an effective "proof of concept" concerning the introduction of top-level domains in the future, including the diversity the proposal would bring to the program, such as fully open top level domains, restricted and chartered domains with limited scope, noncommercial domains, and personal domains; and a variety of business models and geographic locations.
Can this be read as indicating that at some point in the future, the concept would have been proved and a new policy would be established. Further, the DNSO council statement from 2000 indicates:
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.
Has this careful evaluation been done. And who is responsible for this evaluation? I would assume that following this evaluation, new policy recommendations might be reasonable. Is this the period for that evaluation? 4. from board minutes 31 July 2003
Whereas ICANN is also committed to define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new gtlds using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (development of strategy is to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004).
Has the strategy published 30 September 2004 been adopted? And if so, where are we in its timeline at present? I ask because the document still lists itself as a draft. In any case, it looks like the GNSO, ccNSO, and advsories have certain responsibilities between them in this process: - create and implement procedures for designation of TLD Registries - public explanation of the process - selection criteria - rationale for selection decisions. Is this what we are, or should be, in the midst of doing? Since the recommendations for the initial test run of TLD assignments has pretty much run its course, except perhaps for the final evaluation of success, are we at a point where we should be making policy recommendations for a fair, transparent and predictable ongoing process? Thanks a.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27/07/2005 2:21 PM avri doria noted that;
In any case, it looks like the GNSO, ccNSO, and advsories have certain responsibilities between them in this process:
- create and implement procedures for designation of TLD Registries - public explanation of the process - selection criteria - rationale for selection decisions.
Is this what we are, or should be, in the midst of doing?
I believe that this is what we *should* be in the midst of doing so that we can move on to closing off what you recommend in your next question...
Since the recommendations for the initial test run of TLD assignments has pretty much run its course, except perhaps for the final evaluation of success, are we at a point where we should be making policy recommendations for a fair, transparent and predictable ongoing process?
I believe that this is what some are suggesting taking on as a workload. I don't have a substantial problem with it as long as we're doing it in the context of past work, and consistent with the output of that work. In other words, let's finish off the work of the last five years instead of re-doing the work of the work of the last five years. - -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC596N6sL06XjirooRApkcAJ0RmcD8fDqOIm+nnhZdb97u6pisAACfY7rm VDlnGO7ElPxEmqQrogLhy2g= =Pey7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bingo. Thanks Olaf. That's much more complete that what I forwarded to Avri a few minutes ago. Bret
On 27 jul 2005, at 07.14, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Such a history, in summary form, in chronological order, should provide a summary for us to start from.
I very much support this request. As a newcomer, I am reading the mountains of words, i.e. by-laws, contracts, etc., at the moment and it is hard to form a clear view of what the exact implications of a contradiction between consensus policy and contractual agreement are. This seems to me to be an important legal issue that needs to be understood and dealt with. a.
Avri, As background, in 1999-2000, the GNSO (then called the DNSO) created a working group to examine the new TLD issues. Recommendations from the working group were presented to the Council, and we voted in favor of the following resolution: The Names Council...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. http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#18/19April2000NCStatement The ICANN Board adopted the Names Council's recommendations in the following resolution: Resolved [00.46] that the Board hereby adopts the Names Council's recommendation that a policy be established for the introduction of new TLDs in a measured and responsible manner. http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm In accord with the Names Council's recommendations in Paragraph 2 of the above statement of policy, ICANN approved the creation of seven new TLDs in November, 2000 (.INFO, .BIZ, .NAME, .PRO, .MUSEUM, .COOP, and .AERO). And, again as requested by the Names Council policy recommendation, ICANN commissioned a study of the initial introduction (http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf). That pretty much brings us up to date. Bret
participants (5)
-
avri doria -
Bret Fausett -
Marilyn Cade -
Olof Nordling -
Ross Rader