I am being charged with not having support for my claim on the necessity of SRSU  specifically:

> I think the point I was interested has been clarified, there is a qualitative difference between the advocates for .brands as a use case for SRSU, and advocates for .ngos as a use case for SRSU.
> 
> The first appears to be with the informed consent of the beneficiaries of the policy advocated, the later does not.

so I have spoke to people privately about their interest.  i am not going to give names of those who might be considering an application if there is such an exception.  but if there was some public interest for it as a class of applicants that I could see on the NCSG list.

The claim, you see, is that some organization of  brand owners have blessed the cause of .brand, but the organization ngo's (i know what organization) have not blessed the cause of .ngo.  

at this point i am fighting the removal of .ngo from the document as a possible exception.

a.



On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:06, Mary Wong wrote:

> Oh dear, now I'm (even more) puzzled and concerned by what's going on in the VI WG ...
>  
> Are there folks in the WG who think that the issue of whether Single Registrant TLDs *should* be permitted (i.e. a normative policy question) is at least partly dependent on whether members of particular Stakeholder Groups (in this case, NCSG) can *demonstrate* (a factual, not normative, question) whether there is PRESENT interest from its CURRENT membership in such a thing?
>  
> Or is this some attempt to "measure" whether the interest in Single Registrant TLDs is coming ONLY from the commercial (e.g. IP/brand, business) sectors?
>  
> Mary
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:	Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> To:	<[log in to unmask]>
> Date:	7/20/2010 10:59 AM
> Subject:	Single Registrant TLD
> Hi,
> 
> Just checking.
> 
> The contention by some on the VIWG has been that I am deluded when I argue that the NCSG, especially some of its institutional members have no interest in seeing Single Registrant TLD (.ngo for want of a better name) where the names could be distributed internally, without use of a registrar, to employees or members.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my delusion?  Are their institutional members who think this sort of thing should exist - even if their name in not a famous brand?
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> <IMAGE.jpg>