[bc-gnso] BC Position - Baseline Registry Operations Report
berrycobb at infinityportals.com
berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Wed Mar 31 11:26:14 UTC 2010
Philip,
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.
B
Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891
________________________________--
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