Thank you.
> Then who will make other "g.TLD" (Web, Shop, Info, Firm, Nom, Rec) Charters.
> [IMHO] It should be come the first from CORE
>
Actually, that's not what the MoUs say.
CORE does not make gTLDs. See CORE-MoU article 3. This seems to be a
deliberate effort to separate "policy" from "operations". Fairly wise,
as it helps keep the CORE out of court!
So far, I have seen no official response from CORE on which TLDs they
want to deploy. They must be awaiting a decision from POC.
Our gTLDs come from POC. See gTLD-MoU section 6(j) and section 9.
PAB actually has fairly limited responsibilities. One of them is
section 5(b), "general policy matters relating to gTLDs". And looking
at section 9, one can see that PAB advises POC on creation of gTLDs.
For the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to focus this group on
the actual responsibilities of PAB, rather than the endless babbling on
issues for which we have no mandate.
PAB did some good work on MoU amendments, its other responsibility under
5(b). Now, we really should concentrate on
(1) deployment of TLDs, as we are very close to the March deadline.
Remember, though, we only advise POC, not dictate to POC. We just
need to do our best work, and let things flow from there.
(2) forming an official comment on the US proposed rule (certainly
falls under policy matters relating to gTLDs).
Of course, we as individuals should also participate in other groups
with an interest in the DNS, and as individuals contact our various
representatives. We cannot do that as a body (I don't see that in our
charter), but certainly talking among ourselves about our individual
activities seems appropriate.
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32