[council] Fwd from Jonathan Weinberg, re WG-C report

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

 From Jonathan Weinberg:
 To the Names Council:
 Re: Working Group C report
 
 	1. Caroline points out that she had asked me to provide a tally of who
 voted, and how, with regard to any votes referenced in the WG-C report.  I
 apologize abjectly; I simply forgot.  I'll get that information to Ken today.
 
 	2. I'm happy to put together a user-friendly summary of the "models for
 implementing new gTLDs" that evolved in the WG though the position-paper
 mechanism, with the help of the various authors, and I'll try to get that
 to the NC as soon as I can.  That document, though, won't really overlap
 with the one Paul is proposing.  Paul's suggestion, as I understand it, is
 that the NC issue a call for expressions of interest by prospective
 registries, so that the NC can see which entities in fact are interested in
 hosting a new gTLD, and how *they* propose to address the issues.  That's
 not anything that we in the WG ever did (although it seems to me worth doing).
 
 	3. On the WG's order of priority for outstanding issues: I've indicated to
 the WG that it's a top priority for us to reach some resolution on the
 Sheppard/Kleiman principles (whether they're desirable, and if so what they
 should consist of).  We haven't otherwise formulated a firm order of
 priority for outstanding issues; I'd be grateful for any suggestions from
 you folks as to what would be most useful to you.
 
 	4. The "final" version of the report differs from the one circulated in
 Cairo in three ways: [1] It incorporates a variety of changes made in
 response to comments received during and after the Cairo meeting; [2] it
 notes that the WG approved the report in a vote; and [3] it incorporates a
 more elaborate, fleshed out "ongoing work" section.
 
 	It had been my understanding, now that I'm focusing on it, that the NC
 gave us the ten days for two reasons:  First, so that we could address the
 procedural issues raised in Bob Broxton's separate statement (there had
 been no vote, and there had been only one week for discussion and comments
 within the WG).  Second, so that we could flesh out the discussion of
 ongoing work.  So Caroline's correct in questioning my statement in an
 email to the working group that the NC gave us the extra ten days "largely"
 so that we could schedule a vote.  I don't think there was any harm done,
 though, and that language doesn't appear in the report itself.
 
 Jon
 
 
 Jonathan Weinberg
 co-chair, WG-C
 weinberg@msen.com