Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm glad someone understood that. 

On Jul 22, 2010, at 4:12 PM, frederick felman wrote:

> 
> http://www.unicef.org/supply/index_54167.html
> 
> 
> On 7/22/10 3:06 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That's the longest and strangest way of saying "I was wrong" I have ever 
>> read.
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
>>> 
>>> On the .ngo issue.
>>> 
>>> I would like to shed some light on the .ngo discussion by observing
>>> that I am in possession of an RFI by an NGO (who's name is not
>>> trademarked) which, upon several readings, appears to solicit
>>> responses from potential providers of what I view as a restricted,
>>> single-registrant, single-user TLD, consistent with, except for the
>>> use of a brand as the criteria for existence (and presumably, for any
>>> such application prevailing in any string contention set), the
>>> .bRO-SRSU model offered by Kristina.
>>> 
>>> It is the case that there is at least one NGO which is informed, and
>>> consents in principle, to policy development favoring the type of
>>> application it seeks to submit to ICANN.
>>> 
>>> The information came to me directly from the NGO in question, and was
>>> not solicited.
>>> 
>>> I don't think this means the .xRO-WXYZ drill is anywhere close to
>>> having final values for {x, W, X, Y, and Z} or the associated
>>> meanings, but it is no longer a proof by assertion that there exists a
>>> party qualified for, and seeking, a ".ngo".
>>> 
>>> Eric
>> 
>