Re: [gtld-com] Regarding seeking public comment onthecommittee's draft
>>> "Philip Sheppard" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 04/24/03 04:44AM >>>
>I have earlier answered Milton's specific point. The Board's
>question was very simple but the answer is not.
I don't agree. I think the answer is simple, but you are
trying to tie it to a comprehensive approach to TLD addition,
which makes it highly complicated.
I think ICANN process works best when it follows known,
delimited instructions. I still believe very strongly that this
committee should simply answer the question put to it, as
we do in paragraph 7, and leave it at that. I see no gain
in addressing issues we were not asked to address. They
will not bind the Board and we will consume a lot of time.
It sets a bad precedent, too.
I understand your concern, Philip, because I know that you
(like me) have devoted a great deal of thought to the
question of new gTLDs. Your thoughts are reflected in
the BC position paper, mine are reflected in a 42-page
Convergence Center policy paper. Those and several
other papers are available to the Board. When the time
comes, the Board may ask for GNSO advice on other issues,
such as registry failure, auctions vs. lotteries,
sponsored vs. unsponsored, IDN confusion, and so on.
Or they may ask us later to do what you want to do now:
a comprehensive approach.
We could also initiate action on any or all of those issues
on our own motion, using the PDP process.
Until either of those two things happens, however, we
are ultra vires (that's Latin) if we address anything but
the issue identified in item 7.