All, I have recently joined this working group, and I am finding it challenging to keep up with the blizzard of email that is now arriving. I want to clarify my understanding of the earlier Board action. The part that spells out the choices for potentially generic string applicants is clear, and I don't think anyone believes that it is being misinterpreted. However the part that had to do with the future now seems in retrospect unclear; it certainly is for me. The Board work leading to passage of the resolution occurred in the middle of other issues that the Board gTLD Committee had to deal with. It was a very busy time, and not every issue got the attention that it could have under different circumstances. I remember that there were dome differences of opinion regarding how 'generic strings' should be handled. We were under some pressure to provide guidance for applicants in that round, and we settled on the resolution that you have. The longer term issue was more problematic, so we pushed it into the future, but apparently in doing so, we did it in an ambiguous manner. What I remember is the feeling that the Board was concerned about making policy and we felt that the appropriate action was to refer it to the GNSO. My personal recollection is that the action was not time bound, and that whenever the GNSO could come to closure and agree upon a replacement policy, that policy would replace action by the Board. II think we felt that subsequent action by the GNSO, in accordance with its policy development process or other means, would resolve the situation. I can't remember discussing the specific details about how such a transition were to occur, and there may have been little or no such discussion. since we had accomplished what had to be done at that time to keep the process moving. Other people who wre on the Board at that time may or may not have similar memories Finally, I want to state that I do not speak for the Board. Only the Chair is authorized to speak for the Board, and the Chair of the subcommittee was Cherine Chalaby. If it's essential, you could reach our to him. However, it's my understanding that you do not seem to be agreed on a replacement policy at this time, and therefore it doesn't matter how you interpret the Board's mandate for the future at the time of the resolution. Given the length of time since the passage of that resolution and the fickle vagaries of most peoples' memory, including mine, I hope this is helpful, but I could be wrong. George