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 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, 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 |