[gnso-pednr-dt] RE: A correction

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well it's not easy to find this in all the agreements, it does exist in the
MOBI agreement under a "services" section. I don't know if revisiting an
official analysis would change anything that's already on the table at this
point.

FYI, I am currently working on suggested high level language for when an
exception to RGP might apply, I will have that reviewed by the RySG and with
their agreement, will forward it to the WG. 

Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: December-04-10 5:50 PM
To: Michael Young; PEDNR
Subject: Re: A correction

I think that you heard me correctly, but that doesn't make me right.

Way back when, I checked all of the registry agreements and I believe the
findings were that all unsponsored TLDs except two (perhaps name and pro?)
supported the RGP, but none of the sponsored ones did (again, according to
what I found or did not find).

I would be delighted to have the correct analysis.

Alan

At 04/12/2010 05:36 PM, Michael Young wrote:
>Alan in the GNSO meeting I thought I heard you say that sponsored TLDs 
>do not support RGP, maybe I misunderstood.  If I didn't then you should 
>know .mobi does support RGP and has since launch.  Most members of the 
>RySG do support it currently, with .coop being the notable exception 
>due to a specialized registry model.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Michael Young
>Vice President, Product Development
>Afilias
>O:416-673-4109
>M:+1-647-289-1220
>