Re: [gtld-council] Outcomes of the Brussels meeting on policies for contractual conditions

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi:
My standpoint in the proposed definition is at registration
level, so I mainly mean your first option. There is NO
restriction as to the location and origin of the registrant
entities. (But...[see my next point])

Furthermore, I would in fact tend to agree on your second
option, hmm... except that (I just remember) there are gTLDs
like .gov, .edu, and probably also .mil, etc. Are they those you
are thinking of by implying "gTLD can indicate an affinity or  
association with a region," or are there other types one may
think of? Doesn't it have a specific name that class of TLDs
(.gov, .edu, etc.)?  Of course I agree that my definition does
not reflect them and that will need to be fixed. However, I
still think it is better to include more specifications in the
definition (we don't have that many types of gTLDs), than simply
erase that level of granularity.

Mawaki


--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

 
> If you mean by 'pertain' that no gTLD is only for distribution
> to  
> people who actually reside in a region, i might agree, though
> i am  
> not sure and would need to be convinced as to why we would
> need to  
> apply this restriction.
> 
> If you mean by pertain, that no gTLD can indicate an affinity
> or  
> association with a region, then i am sure i don't agree.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>