RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I'm saying two things a) we have all this work (best practices) that dove
into a blackhole after LA (a la Amadeu's warehousing draft) and that b) the
work product of the LA sessions have no buy in because no one has seen them.

Leaving LA, I remember a sense that we were moving in the right direction
with the drafts and that we'd finally arrived at a philsophical direction
that everyone present could support. This "sense" is vastly different than
buy-in however. If buy-in exists, I'd love to know what we bought into...

-rwr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:20 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> Connelly
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
>
>
> I'm simply suggesting that we have a document with buy-in among
> registrars,
> which would be a good draft from which to work.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com>
> To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>; Erica Roberts
> <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
> Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign
>
>
> > This was never ratified by the constituency as a voluntary best
> practices
> > document. The last agreement we had as a group on this
> particular subject
> > was pursuant to the drafting sessions that we had in LA. Post-LA, there
> were
> > no further discussions on the subject.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:03 AM
> > > To: Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F. Connelly
> > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > If you will recall, the registrars had agreed to a best practices
> > > statement,
> > > which addresses this issue, among others.  It would help further
> concensus
> > > building to consider that draft for a starting position.  Please
> > > let me know
> > > if you need a copy. Thanks, Elana
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> > > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; Robert F. Connelly
> > > <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'm happy to progress this further - and maybe get it
> included in the
> NC
> > > > business plan.
> > > > Amadeau - Do you still have the text you drafted when you were
> > > a member of
> > > > the NC?
> > > >
> > > > erica
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
> > > > To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> > > - Verisign
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Robert F. Connelly" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 09:52 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >There are no ICANN policies concerning warehousing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, my very last task as NC rep was to start a resolution on
> > > > > concrete language to implement the anti-warehousing language
> provided
> > > > > for in the ICANN Accreditation Agreement... but was then "sent" to
> the
> > > > > Board and I am afraid that NC never pursued that work.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope something could be done here ;-))
> > > > >
> > > > > Amadeu
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>