RE: [registrars] Meeting ? Vendors *pitching* ccTLDs to the Registrar Constituency -

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

Actually rob's suggestion is not bad. I do not mean in the literal
sense, but I believe a significant amount of vendor attention is
focussed on registrars, and I do believe some of that vendor attention
is interesting (besides the free snacks)

I am actually for having a scheduled half day where all registrars
participate in a select set of vendor meetings. We could actually decide
which ones we wanna allow to make the pitches to us. As it is more than
half a day is spent cumulatively over all the days in an unscheduled
fashion by all regstrars independently on randomly focussed sales
pitches. If this were pencilled in as official, or atleast informally
official it would bring in a lot of advantages such as -

* combined feedback and questions

* organised presentation 

* if a vendor (such as a cctld) knows there is a groups of us thts gonna
be there they will probably spend more time on their pitch instead of
refining it over several one-on-one sessions

* ability to select jointly, mutually benfeicial and interesting
sessions

* other perks such as goodie bags and coffee/snacks ;)

- hell im sure we could charge them, thus increase the revenue of the
constituency (and lower the membership fees ;) )

bhavin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of elliot noss
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 8:21 PM
> To: Rob Hall
> Cc: Registrar Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Meeting ? Vendors *pitching* ccTLDs 
> to the Registrar Constituency -
> 
> 
> Frankly, they (ccTLDs) should be organizing this, not us. We should 
> have none of this on our agenda. If that means we have to use our own 
> money to pay for lunch so what.
> 
> Regards
> 
> On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 09:49 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
> 
> > Hey,
> >
> > Why don't we setup a day, lets say the day after the constituency
> > meeting,
> > and ask any ccTLD that wants to come pitch us to do so.
> >
> > We could rent a room (or better yet, they could), and if it was
> > scheduled
> > properly and posted, we could decide what pitches we wanted 
> to attend, 
> > and
> > which ones we didn't need to.
> >
> > This would give them access to us, and give us scheduled access to
> > them that
> > we could plan our day around.
> >
> > That would leave the constituency meeting for real business (and
> > updates
> > from gTLD Registries) and still allow us to get the information we 
> > want (if
> > we in fact want it).
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > Rob.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 11:02 AM
> > To: Registrar Constituency
> > Subject: [registrars] Vendors *pitching* ccTLDs to the Registrar 
> > Constituency
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues:
> >
> > At the DC meeting, we listened to sales pitches by 
> registries for .cn 
> > , .tv, .cc, and other ccTLDs during our lunch.
> >
> > At the close of the meeting, with the time I'd been saving 
> up by not 
> > speaking 2 minutes on a whole bunch of issues, Michael permitted to 
> > pitch this final missive:
> >
> > Registers must pay their RC dues to vote.
> >
> > ICANN dues throw a financial burden upon gTLD registrars.
> >
> > Therefore, ccTLDs that address the RC should pay all past "dues" or 
> > "donations".
> >
> > I suspect that the combined ccTLDs discussed at today's lunch owe
> > money to
> > ICANN well in excess of the $2,500 they paid to have our ear during 
> > lunch;-(
> >
> > close quote:
> >
> > I hope our Excom will keep this thought in mind as other 
> vendors seek
> > our
> > ear (and pocket book.).
> >
> > Regards, BobC
> >
> >
> >
> 
>