Thanks, Milton.
From: NCSG-NCUC
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:22
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
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