Hi,

There is a lot of confusion in the group now.  I have decided to write a minority report based on the tyranny of a few from the contracted parties who have pretty much taken control of the report.

It is interesting that you should mention the Single Registrant model (we have been discussing both a Single Registrant Single User and Single Registrant Multiple User model)  In fact you were mentioned by one of the other participants - non NCSG, as an example of us not wanting the SR issue and on the NC advocates of that being deluded (at best).

On 19 Jul 2010, at 18:14, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Para 2, Types of SRSU exceptions, sentence 3:
> "Several WG participants who are members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group proposed an SRSU exception for non-governmental organization registries (NGOs) (referred to as .ngo registry) ..."
> 
> I have no issue with calling attention to the SG affiliation of any advocate, but implicit in this is something false. The previous sentence has the IPC as a body making a proposal based upon real self-interest. This sentence elevates the association of these WG participants who are members of the NC SG as advocates for NGOs as recipients of a broad cross-ownership and/or Recommendation 19 exception, and implicitly their interests, to the same level as the IPC and its membership of brand owners.
> 
> This association is false unless there are one or more NGOs which authorized these NC SG members to act on their behalf, as brand owners have authorized their IPC SG members, to pursue indistinguishable ends.
> 
> Has any NGO asked for an exception? The Red Cross contacted CORE and it did not, to the best of my knowledge, ask for a SRSU exception. It asked for a fraud solution and brand protection application, which is not a registration policy so narrow as to admit only one registrant.
> 
> We are not talking about the interests of imaginary brands. We are not allowing random people to claim "they speak for XYZ Corp and its portfolio of brands". We should not entertain claims so conjectural as a claim that some VI WG volunteer may appropriate the good name of some public interest entity to advance claims that lack any other basis.
> 
> The requirement that a policy advocate represents an actual applicant is something that can't be satisfied now, it has to have been demonstrable when the policy was first advocated.


S there is no real consensus in the group.  

I have another meeting now, but wanted to get a quick answer out.

a.


On 20 Jul 2010, at 08:46, Debra Hughes wrote:

> 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
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
>