Re: [registrars] RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS WLS Proposal

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

Oops, I found another "precaffeinated" typo...

"In fulfilling your consensus policy development obligations, you may feel
it necessary to
consult non-member registrars, as I have done with the transfers issue, but
this would be your prerogative and likely, at least not explicitly, required
by the bylaws or Names Council administrative documents."

Should have read "In fulfilling your consensus policy development
obligations, you may feel it necessary to consult non-member registrars, as
I have done with the transfers issue, but this would be your prerogative and
*not* likely, at least not explicitly, required by the bylaws or Names
Council administrative documents."

Apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com>; "'Rick H Wesson'" <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: "Registrars List" <Registrars@dnso.org>; <touton@icann.org>; "Dan
Halloran" <halloran@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: Registrar Constituency Response to the VGRS
WLS Proposal


> > no way, speak for the Constituency on this matter - you may wish to
> consider
> > your dialogue with Rick to ensure that VGRS properly captures the
spirit,
>
> Pre-coffee drafting introduces curious artifacts I see - the sentence
above
> should have read "you may wish to continue..."
>
> '-)
>
> -rwr
>
>