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

["Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Add .ly 

 

Jaime Wagner

 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 

De: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome 
de john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Enviada em: sábado, 12 de março de 2011 21:46
Para: Andrei Kolesnikov
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'
Assunto: RE: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO

 

Just the normal run.  .co, .me, .tv., .la, etc.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and
ccNSO
From: "Andrei Kolesnikov" < <mailto:andrei@xxxxxxxx> andrei@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 4:43 pm
To: < <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'"
< <http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx%3e> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
Cc: < <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

what TLD you are talking about? lets be more specific.

 

---andrei

 

From:  <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ 
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of  <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:00 AM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc:  <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO

 

One thing I have long wondered is why a ccTLD that is redelegated to commercial 
purpose is still managed under cover of ccTLD rules.  I suspect there is an 
onion-like history to the matter, but I wonder if the number of such switches 
is going to accelerate.  I have to imagine the public discussion over new gTLDs 
is giving a lot of CCTLD registries encouragement to draft the market motion.

 

I guess my question is: Is it likely the move from cc to more general purpose 
will accelerate?

 

Cheers,

 

Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] questions for our joint meetings with GAC and ccNSO
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder < <http://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx%3e> 
stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 2:47 pm
To: " <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO" < 
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.

Thanks,

Stéphane

For the ccNSO

- A short explanation of how the 2 Councils work.

- What are the ccNSO currently working on?

- Does the ccNSO see value in meeting with the GNSO Council and if so, how can 
we maximise that value?

- 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?

- How to deal with CWGs and should the recommendations 

For the GAC

- Do we want to have a formal group formed between GAC and GNSO to discuss and 

- Should we work on finding a new liaison from the GAC to the GNSO ?

- CWGs, what is the GAC's view on these and how should their recommendations be 
processed?