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

["Bryan Evans" <bevans@interaccess.com>]

I support a teleconference to discuss this issue.  I don't know about
everyone else, but InterAccess is not sending anyone to Melbourne,
so I'd like to make sure the constituency representatives know the
opinions of as many registrars as possible, whether or not those
registrars are attending the ICANN meeting in Melbourne.

-Bryan

Bryan Evans
Director of Technology
InterAcces, an Allegiance Telecom company
bevans@interaccess.com
312-496-4295

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:49 PM
To: Registrars List
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [registrars] proposed ICANN/Verisign Agreement]


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