<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Milton and our NCUC Names Council representatives:<BR>
<BR>
I think the meeting outlined below would be a disaster for us. I believe that Marilyn Cade is being paid by her clients -- clients she refuses to disclose in her conflict of interest statements -- and she will stack this meeting and its agenda for their interests. She has convinced the business constituency that only sponsored gTLDs (those serving a very narrow, pre-defined group) can be allowed. She also wants single-letter top level domain. She wants absolutely nothing else, and her clients and constituency have not even heard the arguments for opening up the root, and creating a market-oriented approach to a broad range of new gTLDs. I guarantee our view would be shuffled to the back of the discussion. <BR>
<BR>
Especially after Tunis, holding this type of GNSO Council meeting should be dismissed as wrong. We must not be catering to the US "raised eyebrow" oversight of ICANN. This important meeting should not be designed and manipulated by Marilyn basically for the sole purpose of being easily available to her clients' Washington offices.<BR>
<BR>
I vote for Europe or Canada -- with a second public forum on exactly the same topic in New Zealand at the ICANN meeting in March.<BR>
<BR>
Regards, Kathy<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<BR>
Based on information supplied to me by our GNSO Council members, we learn that the Council is thinking of having a physical meeting in late February in Washington DC on new gTLDs. <BR>
<BR>
Superficially, it appears that the Council is holding this meeting to "make progress on policy drafting" in a face to face meeting in order to be ready for the Wellington meeting. But take a closer look. <BR>
<BR>
The meeting is also being held to "provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the reports published so far." What that means, basically, is that it provides an opportunity for Washington-based business lobbies (i.e., intellectual property and BC) to come in and lobby the proceedings in force. And it puts the whole thing before a US government audience, just so we know who really calls the shots. <BR>
Naturally, the meeting was proposed by Marilyn Cade, who has altruistically volunteered to take charge of the arrangements. <BR>
<BR>
There is really no excuse for this. <BR>
<BR>
I urge our Council members to start raising tough questions about the alleged purpose of this proposed meeting. <BR>
<BR>
Holding this meeting in Washington and accepting "public comment" turns this into a lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by Washington insiders, the BC, IPC and incumbent registries, all of whom have good reasons to be hostile to new gTLDs. This is a transparent political ploy. What does this say to the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America and even Europe, that when the Council has to make a crucial decision it sets up shop in Washington with a month's notice and opens its doors to lobbyists? <BR>
<BR>
If the Council really needs to have a f2f meeting to help it work out a common position, its members should get together as far away from Washington DC as possible, and they should keep ALL lobbying and pressure from interest groups as far away from them as possible!!!<BR>
<BR>
We have heard the same arguments for and against new gTLDs for years. We don't need more comment and lobbying. We need to make decisions. The idea that the council and its constituencies don't know what their position is, or need to hear more, is ridiculous. What needs to happen is for the various constituencies to put their heads together and come up with a common position. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>