DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[registrars] RE: [icann-delete] Let the debates begin

Sorry Ross I was referring to a previous email request

> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 5:37 PM
> To: Rick H Wesson
> Cc: Rob Hall; icann-delete@total.confusion.net
> Subject: Re: [icann-delete] Status Update
> > since we have some non-registrars making proposals that seems fair we
> > enumerate who speaks for who.  I'd like to see some disclosure of
> > registrars that partner with proposal submitters. It might be nice to
> > have all the snapnames partners all stand up.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-icann-delete@total.confusion.net
[mailto:owner-icann-delete@total.confusion.net]On Behalf Of Ross Wm
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:22 AM
To: Icann-DeleteTotal Confusion Net
Subject: Re: [icann-delete] Let the debates begin

> Rob,
> I would like to know of the people / registaras that looking into this
> process how many are using Snapnames already and or are providing backend
> systems for them. I know that Ross had asked the same thing the other day.

Actually, I hadn't asked, but I agreed that those that are, should declare
themselves. I want to clarify this statement a little bit in case there is
any misunderstanding.

I am interested in a concise and reasonable debate. Sometimes this is not
possible when those around the table have not declared their interests. I
would like those, around this table, to declare their interests. If we are
creating preference or advantage for an individual or a company through this
effort, it is important that we all know about it so that the group can deal
with it appropriately through the drafting process.

For instance, imagine that Tucows has a patent on a random selection process
that must be used during the drop cycle proposal that Bruce and I tabled. If
this isn't declared up-front, then the consideration of the proposal that
Bruce and I put forward is incomplete and should not be forwarded to VGRS.


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