The .us case was analyzed by the DRD WG and classified as "significantly interesting":Therefore, its absence would be a significant omission :-)PatricioOn Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
Bernie,
Keith,
I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw ccTLD
somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the
tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards.
Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for
leaving it out?
Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose?
If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not
documented). Are there other ND cases like it?
Regards,
Paulos
======================
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
http://www.registrar.mw
ccnso-foiwg mailing list
On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is now
> open for public comments:
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
>
> Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
>
> The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the
> delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide
> IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and
> guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
>
> This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working
> Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Gabi
>
_______________________________________________
ccnso-foiwg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-foiwg