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

Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf jaime at powerself.com.br
Sun Mar 13 17:53:39 UTC 2011


Add .ly 

 

Jaime Wagner

 <mailto:jaime at powerself.com.br> jaime at powerself.com.br
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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Em nome de john at crediblecontext.com
Enviada em: sábado, 12 de março de 2011 21:46
Para: Andrei Kolesnikov
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org; '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 at cctld.ru> andrei at cctld.ru>
Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 4:43 pm
To: < <mailto:john at crediblecontext.com> john at crediblecontext.com>, "'Stéphane_Van_Gelder'"
< <http://stephane.vangelder@indom.com%3e> stephane.vangelder at indom.com>;
Cc: < <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org>

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

 

---andrei

 

From:  <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> owner-council at gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of  <mailto:john at crediblecontext.com> john at crediblecontext.com
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:00 AM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
Cc:  <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org 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@indom.com%3e> stephane.vangelder at indom.com>;
Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 2:47 pm
To: " <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org GNSO" < <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> council at gnso.icann.org>


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?





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110313/3eca9565/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list