I could not help but share it on local networks. Timely for those of us on the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support ("JAS") Working Group), thanks Milton.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree – I’m just reading it now! It’s really helpful

 

Cheers

 

Rosemary

 

Rosemary Sinclair

Managing Director, ATUG

Chairman, INTUG

T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889

M: +61 413734490 

Email: [log in to unmask]

Skype: rasinclair

 

Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au

 


From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 4:31 PM

Subject: Re: Status of VI WG Efforts

 

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

Phone: 1-603-513-5143

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 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]

 


Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership