Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Table - more input needed!

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/16/10 3:26 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> IPC is clearly a separate proposal.

Agree, though the proposal is for as as yet imaginary brand type.


> Can someone from ISP clarify if its submission should be listed as a
> proposal in matrix

If, and only if, they got their act together, and for a decade the
ISPC, like the BC, has been a thin shadow of the IPC, they'd be
working on the subscriber model for walled garden style access network
operators.

And the users, who ever represents them, would be working on a
subscriber model that is access network operator independent, like
number portability.

I don't see them as having a proposal, yet, and since this is an
iterative process, the equally imaginary subscriber type, captive and
open, like the imaginary brand type, can wait until the Council
proposes, the Board approves, and Staff implements that application
type, and we all spend a year smoothing the edges and getting it
right, and these no longer imaginary creature appear in some
subsequent round.

Neither will be the 15th gTLD delegation authorized since 2000, and
that is what we don't have yet.

Eric