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