Re: [registrars] proposed ICANN/Verisign Agreement

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Thanks you for your responses on this so far - it is certainly clear that it
is quite wrong to claim that the draft agreement has the support of the
Registrars constituency!  However, as Elana and others have suggested, it
would be v useful  if we could develop a considered response to this issue
which has the support of the Registrars constituency.  This is something
which should be included in our agenda for Melbourne but I think the more
work we can complete before then on the list, the better!


> 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?

I saw the claim when I was skimming the GA list - I think it had been
wrongly attributed to Louis but I can't be sure.

erica

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] proposed ICANN/Verisign Agreement


> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------