NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:59:17 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
While I would not dispute any of the facts he mentions.
I think it was a bit more optimistic than i would have written.

a.

On 21 Jul 2010, at 01:49, Mary Wong wrote:

> I urge everyone to read Milton's blog post (below) - it really does give a good sense of where things stand in the Working Group, and for those members who have not been following the vertical integration issue closely, provides an excellent place to catch up!
>  
> Cheers
> 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:	Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
> To:	<[log in to unmask]>
> Date:	7/20/2010 9:24 AM
> Subject:	Re: Status of VI WG Efforts
> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debra Hughes
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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 andnot-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]
> 
> 
> 
> <IMAGE.jpg>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2