] >The major issues are with the interim measures and there the green paper
] >notably avoids tricky questions like *when* and *how* the USG proposes
] >to select the supposed 5 registries.  CORE, POC and ISOC support IANA's
] >authority to make DNS decisions.
] >
] >The issue should illustrate to the ADNA folks how important it is to
] >move forward with broad consensus.  Without it, there's no traction.

A very important point.
 
] Is the US Federal Govt position opposed to CORE and the gTLD's or do they
] support it?

They don't support CORE.  But then, its not clear that the US Government
knows what CORE is.

The way I read it, they are trying to go back and reinvent the IAHC
(probably by privatising IANA).  There is no mention of IAHC, POC, CORE,
ISOC or the MoU.  In fact they seem to propose that entities which sound
suspiciously like CORE and ISOC should be created from scratch, and I
think the privatised IANA is supposed to do the sorts of things we are
expecting POC to do (and which POC is probably doing right now).

It is not clear whether they are just totally ignorant of the gTLD-MoU
process which has been happening for some time now (and the existence
of ISOC), or they are choosing to snub them.  At the moment, I'm
inclined to think the former, although that is surprising after Jon
Postel (IANA) explicitly supported IAHC in his submission to the US
Govt on this question last August.

The US Govt has also "decided" that there should be 5 new domains
(which I presume is instead of the 7 proposed by IAHC/POC).
__________________________________________________________________________
 David Keegel <djk&#167;cyber.com.au>  URL: http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management