Re: [Fwd: [registrars] proposed ICANN/Verisign Agreement]

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

In light of the substantive change of direction of the proposed ICANN/NSI agreement and the relatively few Registrars who will be in Melbourne would it be an idea to
hold a tel conf

May I invite your comments, both supporting comments and opposing commnets must be substantive and may I draw your attention to section "D" of
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

The NC will be discussing this issue on Sunday....

Thanks

Paul


> Subject: Re: [registrars] proposed ICANN/Verisign Agreement
> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:49:04 -0500
> From: Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>
> Organization: DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> To: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> CC: registrars@dnso.org
> References: <022201c0a538$a9e3bcc0$8dd4fea9@pcax10series>
>
> We are 100% against this, and we are planning
> to do whatever is necessary to prevent
> this from happening.
>
> We will be filing a formal objection
> which we will try and post to the list.
>
> Erica, below you said:
>
> "Since there has been no objection from the Registrars, it has been
> claimed that the draft agreement is supported by the Registrars."
>
> Who exactly has made this claim?
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>
> Erica Roberts wrote:
> >
> > The proposed new ICANN/Verising Agreement is likely to be discussed in many fora at the ICANN Melbourne meeting including the Names Council - see
> > http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
> >
> > Since there has been no objection from the Registrars, it has been claimed that the draft agreement is supported by the Registrars.  However, to my knowledge t
> > Since this will impact most on Registrars, it would be useful if this matter could be included in the agenda for discussion in Melb.
> >
> > Regards,
> > erica
> >
> >     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > The proposed new ICANN/Verising Agreement is likely to be discussed in
> > many fora at the ICANN Melbourne meeting including the Names Council -
> > see
> > http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
> >
> > Since there has been no objection from the Registrars, it has been
> > claimed that the draft agreement is supported by the Registrars.
> > However, to my knowledge the Registrars Consistuency have not
> > established any position on this matter.  In order to ensure that the
> > Registrars constituency is appropriately represented in the matter, I
> > would appreciate Registrar comments on the proposal.
> > Since this will impact most on Registrars, it would be useful if this
> > matter could be included in the agenda for discussion in Melb.
> >
> > Regards,
> > erica
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------