NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:40:11 -0500
Reply-To:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C25SUEX07MBX04ad_"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (758 bytes) , text/html (1990 bytes)
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair
>
>Until things change....they stay as they are....
>
Ah but that's exactly the problem, Rosemary. What exactly is allowed now by things "as they are?"

Registrars and staff are claiming (with quite a few facts to support their case) that JM/CO is allowed now by "the way things are" and DAGv3 is "implementation."

Registries are claiming that DAGv3 is a policy change and is not part of the "way things are."

So your position that we only need a single, gigantic PDP to resolve all issues related to VI basically means that it would take 3-4 years to answer this question, right? And what happens to the TLD cartel in the meantime? Is it leeft in place?

--MM




ATOM RSS1 RSS2