Philip, Thank you for the feedback. I agree on the format, and I will take the action to work with Steve to get one defined and sent for review by the BC/CBUC. I also agree about the use of BC vs. CBUC. I usually take the more literal use of acronyms. I look to the Chairs and Executive committee for official guidance. With the new structure of the GNSO, I felt it minimizes confusion by using the four character version, especially when viewing the entire GNSO organization structure. I can go either way and will update documents once defined. Thanks again. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 ________________________________-- Quoting Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>:
On content - AIM supports this position.
Again a couple of observations on style.
1. The paper is formatted in a particular style. It is good. But before we adopt a style lets be sure we are consistent. Is this style what we now want for all BC papers going forward? If YES - good, lets adopt and change the new registry agreement position into this style If NO - revert to the current style.
2. How do we describe ourselves? For years we have been known informally as the Business Constituency or BC despite ICANN's official title for us upon which we were never consulted! If we want to change to calling ourselves CBUC, fine, but again lets be consistent in all communication going forward. I would point out that our own Charter uses the terminology Business Constituency or BC. If we do change to CBUC, there will be a number of changes on the website to consider as well.
Philip