Re: [registrars] Consensus Building

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

It as never meant to go to the NC or the rest of the DNSO. It was, according
to my recollection, to be voted on by the RC as a voluntary best practices
document.

-rwr



Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
----- Original Message -----
From: "erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>; "Robert F. Connelly"
<rconnell@psi-japan.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Consensus Building


> Hi Bob,
> I think we share a sense of frustration here.  But we can't blame ICANN -
it
> is up to the RC to put a proposal to the NC so that a DNSO position can be
> developed.  So far, the RC has not referred the draft CoC to the NC so the
> DNSO has not been able to develop a position on the issue.
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Consensus Building
>
>
> > At 07:12 PM 9/27/01 +0800, erica wrote:
> > >It is perhaps worth reflecting that this may not have happened if the
RC
> had
> > >forwarded the draft CoC to the NC for discussion and comment by other
> > >constituencies.  It is not too late to do this and thus to progress the
> > >issue.
> > >
> > >erica
> >
> > Dear Erica:  I've mentioned it several times.  The Escrow system is
> another
> > example of the lack of follow up by ICANN.
> >
> > Regards, BobC
> >
> >
>