Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: applicant purpose (was: Comments On Draft text)

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Michele,

At the Mexico City meeting I was approached by a ccTLD operator who confided
to me that there was insufficient network access to the capital of that state
and we discussed a totally "off-shore" ccTLD registry, primarily for the sole
purpose of foreign trademark registration, which I personally thought an odd
long-term notion of a public service model.

Continuting with the hyothetical "Nairobi" which lacks ipv6 now and for
the next several years, according to regional transit operators, and one
additional assumption, that an application is for ".nairobi", by the
municipal government of that city.

Your position is that the application should be unqualfied for support,
option (a) in the prior note, or qualified but allowed to fail later for
lack of means to meet the v6 requiement, option (b) in the prior note?

Your position is that if the application was made by the same applicant,
but with the operational venue in Cape Town, that it should neither fail
to be supported, not option (a), nor fail subsequently, not option (b)?

I want to be sure that "Nairobi" can't apply for support, or operate a
registry to implement public administration, or both, until a transit
provider brings v6 to "Nairobi", under the recommendations you intend.

Eric