RE: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

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

I'm cool with Tim's amendment and this subsequent revision Elana. Per
Rick's most recent message, we should probably let things percolate a
little bit through more discussion, but I don't see any reason why we
shouldn't submit this or something similar to the Excomm in time for
their Monday call.


                       -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 Elana Broitman
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:33 PM
To: 'tim@godaddy.com'; ross@tucows.com; wessorh@ar.com
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: 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.h
tm#A- 
>3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
>(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.h
tm#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 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>