ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO

  • To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO
  • From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:59:53 -0700
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.4.05
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; 
font-size:10pt;"><div>One thing I have long wondered is why a ccTLD that is 
redelegated to commercial purpose is still managed under cover of ccTLD 
rules.&nbsp; I suspect there is an onion-like history to the matter, but I 
wonder if the number of such switches is going to accelerate.&nbsp; I have to 
imagine the public discussion over new gTLDs is giving a lot of CCTLD 
registries encouragement to draft the market motion.</div><div><br></div><div>I 
guess my question is: Is it likely the move from cc to more general purpose 
will 
accelerate?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid 
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black; 
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO<br>
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder &lt;<a 
href="http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx&gt";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx&gt</a>;<br>
Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 2:47 pm<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> GNSO" 
&lt;<a href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
<br>
Here are the questions I wrote down during our meeting today. These were done 
on the fly some will obviously need some work. Please correct/amend/refine as 
necessary. There is some urgency for the GAC questions as that is tomorrow and 
it would be good if we could some questions to the GAC asap.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
For the ccNSO<br>
<br>
- A short explanation of how the 2 Councils work.<br>
<br>
- What are the ccNSO currently working on?<br>
<br>
- Does the ccNSO see value in meeting with the GNSO Council and if so, how can 
we maximise that value?<br>
<br>
- There are big changes to the current ICANN landscape coming, with respect to 
new gTLDs, what would the ccNSO's position be on cc operators that plan to run 
gTLDs?<br>
<br>
- How to deal with CWGs and should the recommendations <br>
<br>
For the GAC<br>
<br>
- Do we want to have a formal group formed between GAC and GNSO to discuss and 
<br>
<br>
- Should we work on finding a new liaison from the GAC to the GNSO ?<br>
<br>
- CWGs, what is the GAC's view on these and how should their recommendations be 
processed?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>