Dear Tony, The attachment is to fix tiny points. Please integrate them if you agree. I read it with a fresh eye without involvement to the previous discussion. I agree that new comers with the new gTLD which is now introduing 1200+ TLDs will completely change the landscape of GNSO composition as written. I like the approach to try a different Stakeholder Advisory mechanism from the agenda which are more general to ICANN. I found some other issues are raised there: overload of GNSO Council, difficulty with joint SO/AC WG activities and the paper seems to propose a way to improve them all at once. I had a feeling by it as if the ISPCP propose a process change to include other SO and ACs into the development of the gTLD policies. For me, it should have been much easier to read if the different stakeholder advisory mechanism had been within GNSO. I am afraid that I just tell you my impression without any solution. I might have missed any discussion, so it would be great if you find any gap of logic within this paper in my impression. Sincerely, Akinori In message <00c301cd95a0$bbea68a0$33bf39e0$@btinternet.com> "[ispcp] FW: Inpact of new gTLDS" ""tony holmes" <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>" wrote: | All | | Attached is an overdue draft of the ISPCP response on the impact of the new | gTLD program. It aligns with the thoughts we discussed in Prague. Apologies | for the delay in sending this, but we do need to get it to the Board | Governance Committee ASAP. | | I'd very much appreciate your comments or concurrence ASAP, ideally by this | time tomorrow if at all possible. | | Best Regards | | Tony | | | | | | |