RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Mr. Foot. I'd like you to meet Mr. Mouth. Mr. Mouth, meet Mr. Foot.

I have a bad habit of reaming off emails that no one is supposed to see.
They are usually inflammatory, ill-conceived, chauvinistic, wrong, racist,
poorly-spelled,  sadistic, contemptuous, ornery, spastic, foolish, mean,
shortsighted, clouded, inept, addled, apish, inapprehensible, wookian,
conceited, stupid and in addition to the foregoing, just downright wrong.

And they usually get sent to the trashbin, with the exception of the odd one
that makes it to the list every five years ago. The space between the send
and delete button are remarkably small...

Without reading 1/10 of Erica's message, I fired off a missive that could
easily be characterized by 95% the subscribers to this list as being 95%
consistent with 95% of the above terms.

Erica, list, and NC reps, please accept this as a formal apology and
retraction.

The message below (that everyone should seen, not the last one) will stand
to replace my earlier embarrassment.







Erica,

Agreed.

-rwr






















<<<ADVERT>>>

For only $9.95 a month, you can subscribe to all of the messages I don't
send. The earlier one was a free sample. ;)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; Elana Broitman; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> Connelly
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; Rob Hall
> Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
>
>
> I think you are right Ross, but as I recall it, his whole thread
> came up in
> response to a discussion about anti-warehousing provisions and their
> enforcement.  If we are talking about enforcement, we need a
> consensus-based
> policy endorsed by the NC.
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; "Elana Broitman"
> <ebroitman@register.com>; "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
> "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>; "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign
>
>
> > I don't recall that this was going to be put forward on that
> basis. To the
> > contrary, I explicitly remember a constituency vote that called for the
> > document to be put forward as a voluntary best practices statement, not
> > binding policy adopted through the NC route. Maybe I'm reading your
> message
> > wrong as it is conceivably possible to put forward a resolution
> that would
> > state the the document is a voluntary statement of practice...
> >
> > Clarification anyone?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Erica Roberts
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:12 AM
> > > To: Elana Broitman; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F. Connelly
> > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > I underrstand that the process for getting a 'best practices' document
> > > enshrined in ICANN 'policy' would be roughly as follows:
> > >
> > > 1.  Registrars constituency forwards the proposed policy to the NC for
> > > endorsement.
> > > 2.  NC posts the proposed policy for public comment and
> > > specifically seeks a
> > > response from each of the DNSO constituencies.
> > > 3.  Comment incorporated into new draft developed by Registrars in
> liaison
> > > with NC.
> > > 4.  New draft published for comment.
> > > 5.  NC votes on new draft and, if agreed, advises the Board.
> > > 6.  The BoD considers and votes on the NC advice.
> > >
> > > If this is to be incorporated into ICANN policy, there is a
> > > lengthy process
> > > to be followed and we need to get to Stage 1 asap.
> > >
> > > erica
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
> > > To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; "Amadeu
> Abril i Abril"
> > > <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you will recall, the registrars had agreed to a best practices
> > > statement,
> > > > which addresses this issue, among others.  It would help
> > > further concensus
> > > > building to consider that draft for a starting position.  Please let
> me
> > > know
> > > > if you need a copy. Thanks, Elana
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> > > > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; Robert F. Connelly
> > > > <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:32 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> > > - Verisign
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I'm happy to progress this further - and maybe get it
> > > included in the NC
> > > > > business plan.
> > > > > Amadeau - Do you still have the text you drafted when you
> > > were a member
> > > of
> > > > > the NC?
> > > > >
> > > > > erica
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
> > > > > To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > Verisign
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Robert F. Connelly" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 09:52 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >There are no ICANN policies concerning warehousing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, my very last task as NC rep was to start a resolution on
> > > > > > concrete language to implement the anti-warehousing
> > > language provided
> > > > > > for in the ICANN Accreditation Agreement... but was then
> > > "sent" to the
> > > > > > Board and I am afraid that NC never pursued that work.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope something could be done here ;-))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Amadeu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>