<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] telecon
I don't understand this at all. I agree that Register.com is important
to this issue, since they are the ones holding the domains hostage, but
they had five people in Stockholm. Are they saying now that they can't
spare one for a telephone call? I find this highly improbable.
Michael has arranged this to conform with the urgency of the situation
and the schedules of (as far as I can see) all but one person from one
registrar. This seems more than fair.
There have been teleconferences in the past that I couldn't make. So I
either missed them or, if it was important enough, I changed my
schedule. It's a simple question of priorities. If as Elana says the
issue is important to Register.com, she'll make the call or delegate the
duty to someone else.
Antony
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Antony Van Couvering
CEO, NameEngine
401 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Tel +1 212 274-1960
Fax +1 212 214-0731
avc@nameengine.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavint@directi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:45 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] telecon
>
>
> i agree with rob on the following counts
>
> 1. one day wont make too much of a difference
>
> 2. there are more than one party affected..... rob,
> register.com and other
> registrars who may be at inet
>
> rest, i am ok with either of the dates.....
>
> bhavin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:45 PM
> > To: Michael D. Palage; Ross Wm. Rader; Registrars@Dnso.Org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] telecon
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > While I think that in general I agree with your points about
> > accommodation,
> > in this case, I do not think it wise to proceed without Elana or
> > Register.com (or any other registrar that is attending INET
> or traveling)
> > being there. I know that in response to my earlier
> posting, I received 2
> > out of office notices from other registrars that aren't
> back until next
> > week. We are talking about delaying by 1 business day. If they
> > had asked
> > to delay for weeks, that would be different. I do not believe
> > their intent
> > is to push this meeting off, but rather to participate in it.
> >
> > Following the complaints about being blindsided at the registrars
> > constituency meeting, I am sensitive to the perception that
> it may be
> > happening again.
> >
> > As this matter clearly involves Register.com as one of the principal
> > registrars involved, I think it only fair that the rest of group
> > be able to
> > hear their side as opposed to only being presented with one
> side of the
> > argument.
> >
> > In this case, I think holding the meeting Monday will be
> more productive
> > and certainly more conducive to working together towards a
> > solution that we
> > all can live with.
> >
> > I think that making this small accommodation will go along
> way in healing
> > some of the wounds created at the last meeting. The only way we
> > can solve
> > this is to work together. Any actions that would further
> > entrench the two
> > sides will only make any possible consensus resolution take longer,
> > something none of us want.
> >
> > In closing, I think the request for a Monday meeting should be
> > granted, and
> > views heard from all sides. We need to move forward in a positive
> > way. The fact that Register.com is anxious to be involved in the
> > discussions and on the call is a good sign and a small step
> to moving
> > forwards progressively.
> >
> > Rob.
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:55 AM 6/7/2001 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > >Rob:
> > >
> > >As I stated earlier to Elana, this is primarily for the
> benefit of those
> > >smaller registrars that do not have travel budgets and
> which were not in
> > >Stockholm. I understand that you share some concerns
> raised by Elana on
> > >this issue, but I respectfully must move forward unless there is
> > significant
> > >push back from other registrars in the constituency.
> > >
> > >Recently some people have raised constructive comments
> about my plate
> > >overflowing and that it is difficult to get everything done.
> > Respectfully,
> > >the problems arise when certain registrars ask for special
> > treatment. Case
> > >in point. I wasted three hours of my time attempting to
> reschedule the
> > >Registrar meeting last week to the afternoon. This involved
> > interfacing with
> > >ICANN, the local event planners, etc.
> > >
> > >The registrar constituency spoke in Stockholm and the
> message was move
> > >forward now not latter. This message has been reinforced by
> > numerous emails
> > >that I have received this week. Therefore, I will
> respectfully keep the
> > >teleconference scheduled for Friday. The exact time will be set
> > within the
> > >next hour.
> > >
> > >Thanks again for your comments but I believe the totality of the
> > >circumstance argue in favor of moving forward.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >
> > >Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:01 AM
> > > > To: Ross Wm. Rader; Registrars@Dnso.Org
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] telecon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ross et al,
> > > >
> > > > Given that the INET conference is still on in
> Stockholm, and that many
> > > > people may still be there or traveling back from it, does it not
> > > > make sense
> > > > to have the telethon on Monday ?
> > > >
> > > > I realize that there is some sensitivity to the urgency
> of this, but I
> > > > think we will be more productive with the registrars
> directly involved
> > > > being able to attend the telecon.
> > > >
> > > > Rob.
> > > >
> > > > At 06:48 AM 6/7/2001 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > > >> Elana:
> > > > > >>could we please switch to Monday, June 11th. I am travelling
> > > > on Friday and
> > > > >it would be difficult to joint telecon. Given that we have
> > been heavilly
> > > > >involved, I'd >>really appreciate being able to join.
> Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >For the official record I would like to note that the
> > adoption of this
> > > > >stance by various registrars is costing our
> organization thousands of
> > > > >dollars *per day*, inconveniencing thousands of registrants and
> > > > placing an
> > > > >undue and unnecessary burden on the technical systems of our
> > > > registrar and
> > > > >the registry. Further delay in resolving this issue only
> > compounds the
> > > > >problem and advantages those that have chosen to work
> outside of
> > > > appropriate
> > > > >conduct and accepted process.
> > > > >
> > > > >-rwr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Tucows Inc.
> > > > >t. 416.538.5492
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rob Hall voice (613) 768-5100
> > > > President fax (613) 820-0777
> > > > Momentous.ca Corp.
> > > > rob@momentous.ca www.momentous.ca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > iti,s
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rob Hall voice (613) 768-5100
> > President fax (613) 820-0777
> > Momentous.ca Corp.
> > rob@momentous.ca www.momentous.ca
> >
> >
> >
> > iti,s
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|