RE: [registrars] Original Budget Committee Volunteers

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

> Ross - I am sorry that you felt the need to send such an inappropriate
> remark.

While I fail to see how the remarks were inappropriate, you do raise two
other points I'd like to address.

> Along the lines of your argument, I would think that the
> fact that
> Tucows is running the Afilias registry and is actively marketing its
> registry outsource business raises questions about Tucows' capital
> interests.

If this is the case, then please ask the questions.

>
> However, I do not believe that any company should be disqualified from
> consideration.  In fact, ICANN bylaws do not allow a constituency to
> preclude membership based on being a member of a different constituency.
> This logic should extend here.
>

The logic is irrelevant. There is no denial of membership or participation.
The question is management of conflict of interest within the constituency.
This stance is historically congruent with past decisions the constituency
has made on matters like this - in fact, I believe that your firm has long
been a proponent of managing conflicts like this in a manner similar to
this.

-rwr


> Regards, Elana
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com>
> To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>; Michael D. Palage
> <michael@palage.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Original Budget Committee Volunteers
>
>
> > ] Original Budget Committee Volunteers
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you Rob for that reminder.
> > >
> > > As I recall, we wanted to have representatives of small and large
> > > registrars.  This would argue for one of the larger registrars to be
> > > nominated to replace Bulk Register.  I don't believe that we
> > > should exclude
> > > any registrar from being nominated.  Various companies are involved in
> > > several constituencies and have always been.  We simply need to know
> that
> > > whoever is nominated will represent the interests of the registrar
> > > constituency.
> >
> > Elana: The issue here is not multi-constituency activity, but a lack
> > thereof. The new registries do not have a seat at the DNSO
> table yet, and
> it
> > would be highly inappropriate for them to assume a spot within this
> > constituency to represent themselves in the absence of appropriate venue
> > elsewhere. I shy from casting aspersions, but we are talking about human
> > nature and capital interests here.
> >
> > Group: On a slightly different note, I am also to assume from earlier
> > statements on the list that Tucows equity in Afilias would preclude us
> from
> > participating in this committee? If not, I would be pleased to
> put forward
> > Tim Denton from our organization to represent the large
> registrars at the
> > budget table. Other than our small stake in Afilias, we hold no
> interests
> in
> > other registries, sit on any registry boards of directors etc.
> Tim is also
> > looking for extra stuff to do right now ;)
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
>