All, I strongly support this view and Bruce's detailed approach to a comprehensive consultation that actually seeks public input on the policy issue itself. Bruce's dual-pronged approach, i.e. - seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy should be in response to the terms of reference, - seeking input from the public on what the policy should be ............ is logical. I also support the idea of an online event or discussion of some sort. Marilyn made a very practical suggestion that we draft some specific questions. Then in subsequent e-mails, there was reference to posted questions. Clearly, I am missing something here because I can't find the questions. Would someone please point me to the posting? Thank you. Best regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:49 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January If that is what we want we should make this very clear to the public so that we will reiceive the input we are looking for and not i.e. comments in regard to the TOR itself. Having the public focus on the real policy questions will certainly raise the quality of the comments quite a bit. Best, tom Am 19.12.2005 schrieb Bret Fausett:

So Bruce is correct: we are asking for substantive answers to the questions posted. These comments will be synthesized into an initial public comment report that will become part of the PDP record. I know that the ALAC intends to submit initial comments during this period.

Bret

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w