Status of VI WG Efforts

[Milton L Mueller]

I just blogged about this. It's a short summary but gives you all the essence.
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4582700.html


From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Debra Hughes
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:47 AM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Status of VI WG Efforts


Can someone in the VI WG provide an update on how things are going?  There is a lot of traffic on the Council list indicating that it is possible the WG may not have consensus on important points before the Board meeting in September.  I think many would agree that allowing the current language in DAG4 to remain unchanged is problematic.

I certainly hope the single registrant/private registry exception has support.  As I mentioned in Brussels, this exclusion is important for not-for-profit organizations or other entities that may consider a new gTLD for purposes that are not driven by a profit motive, but rather, to create a safer place to execute its mission or to deliver its services.  Many companies and not-for-profit organizations that are considering new gTLDs may not intend to offer registrations to the public.

Thanks,
Debbie



Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel

American Red Cross

Office of the General Counsel

2025 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

Phone: (202) 303-5356

Fax: (202) 303-0143

HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100720/a1fda052/attachment.html>