RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Title: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

Tim - I would offer a friendly amendment to your language to keep it within the more narrow relm proposed by Ross, as follows:

 
"... that any officer, employee, or board director of any ICANN recognized
gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry
>Proprietary Information >(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-
>3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information >(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A- not be permitted to participate in this constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such position

and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:29 PM
To: ross@tucows.com; wessorh@ar.com
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

What about something like this:

"... that any officer, employee, or board director of any ICANN recognized
gTLD registry not be permitted to participate in this constituency at any
level, in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such position
and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:36 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com; 'Rick Wesson'
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

> Like it or not, there will never again be a clear distinction
> between registrars and registries. We are all in this to make
> a profit. While I don't want people involved on this list, or
> in the RC, that have intimate, confidential knowledge of our
> businesses, I also don't want to preclude a legitimate party
> from being able to participate.

Tim - if this has been lost in the exchange somewhere, let me clarify
for the record - this is *precisely* the sentiment and intent of the
motion. I believe that it strikes an appropriate balance between these
two competing dynamics to the benefit of the constituency.

If there is a clearer way to word it, I am open to friendly amendments
of the motion.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:46 AM
> To: Rick Wesson; Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
>
>
> Rick,
>
> > completely within our capabilities to clearly separate
> registrars from
> > those that work for registries
>
> That I don't think I agree with. If that is where this is
> leading then I would object. I don't want this list, and the
> RC that represents my business interests, captured by a group
> of mostly small registrars promoting their own agenda.
>
> Like it or not, there will never again be a clear distinction
> between registrars and registries. We are all in this to make
> a profit. While I don't want people involved on this list, or
> in the RC, that have intimate, confidential knowledge of our
> businesses, I also don't want to preclude a legitimate party
> from being able to participate.
>
> I see no member of the RC or this list who I would object to
> participating.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
>
>
>
>
> Ross,
>
> I support this position. I believe that it is completely
> within our capabilities to clearly separate registrars from
> those that work for registries and to have this constituency
> membership only reflect registrars intrests.
>
> best,
>
> -rick
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > I would like to formally move that any representative of any ICANN
> > recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to
> > registry Proprietary Information
> >
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-
> 06mar01.htm#A-
> > 3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> >
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-
> 06mar01.htm#A-
> > 3.2 also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> participate in this
> > constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a period of
> one year
> > since the last receipt of such information and that our by-laws be
> > amended to reflect this.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ross Wm. Rader
> > Tucows Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:26 AM
> > Subject: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> >
> >
> > > As PersonalNames is now an ICANN accredited registrar they are
> > > eligible
> to
> > > subscribe to the registrar mailing list, and they have asked to be
> added.
> > To
> > > date PersonalNames has not paid any membership dues so it is not
> eligible
> > to
> > > vote in any constituency matters.
> > >
> > > Yesterday there were several posts asking the Registrar Executive
> > Committee
> > > to schedule a call with PersonalNames. Although the Executive
> > > Committee stands ready to assist the constituency in this
> matter, I
> > > believe that
> > some
> > > dialogue between PersonalNames and the rest of the registrar
> > > community
> > might
> > > make any such call more productive.
> > >
> > > The only PersonalNames representative that has asked to join the
> registrar
> > > mailing list to date is Hakon Haugnes.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Michael D. Palage
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>