DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Update

I am not clear why this next meeting should be a non-constituency meeting.
The fact that the constituency is unlikely to have unamimous support for its
position in relation to Option A or B, does not mean that the constituency
can express no views.
As a representative of the Registrars constituency on the NC, I would like
to represent the majority constituency view - as distinct from the view of a
group of Registrars operating outside the constituency.  The former is
likely to carry more weight than the latter!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:14 AM
Subject: [registrars] Update

> Attached please find an excel spreadsheet containing the paid information
> the registrar fees first and second draw. People that have recently joined
> the constituency are only responsible for the second draw. I know there
> some people that have paid and are not showing up on the list, some of
> I spoke with in Australia. Please send me a note and I will work with
> at ICANN in tracking these fees down.
> Register.com has offered to host another teleconference with regard to the
> NSI/DOC/ICANN contracts early next week, I believe on the 20th. I will
> provide information to ICANN registrars individually with regard to this
> teleconference and not through the list since it is an non-constituency
> event.
> Sorry for being out of touch, but my notebook broke prior to Australia and
> my newly ordered one was DOA :-)
> Mike

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>