[bc-gnso] BC Position - Baseline Registry Operations Report

berrycobb at infinityportals.com berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Wed Mar 31 11:26:14 UTC 2010


Thank you for the feedback.

I agree on the format, and I will take the action to work with Steve  
to get one defined and sent for review by the BC/CBUC.

I also agree about the use of BC vs. CBUC.  I usually take the more  
literal use of acronyms.  I look to the Chairs and Executive committee  
for official guidance.  With the new structure of the GNSO, I felt it  
minimizes confusion by using the four character version, especially  
when viewing the entire GNSO organization structure.  I can go either  
way and will update documents once defined.

Thanks again.


Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC


Quoting Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be>:

> On content - AIM supports this position.
> Again a couple of observations on style.
> 1. The paper is formatted in a particular style. It is good. But   
> before we adopt
> a style lets be sure we are consistent.
> Is this style what we now want for all BC papers going forward?
> If YES - good, lets adopt and change the new registry agreement position into
> this style
> If NO - revert to the current style.
> 2. How do we describe ourselves? For years we have been known   
> informally as the
> Business Constituency or BC despite ICANN's official title for us   
> upon which we
> were never consulted! If we want to change to calling ourselves   
> CBUC, fine, but
> again lets be consistent in all communication going forward.
> I would point out that our own Charter uses the terminology Business
> Constituency or BC.
> If we do change to CBUC, there will be a number of changes on the website to
> consider as well.
> Philip

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list