Re: [registrars] Re: Drafting Committee Report

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

rita & all...

i also feel that we need to have the call on tuesdauy.
we registrars should work towards our own consensus position on this policy
& rules and request that our proposed changes be posted along with a
statement of support for our proposed amended document.

i believe it is essential that we registrars stand up and be heard on this
issue. we are vested with the responsibility of effecting this process and
we have invested countless hours in drafting what we felt was a good
compromise document. if we are comfortable with the proposed changes,  then
thats fine... but if we are not or believe that specific items should not be
modified,  it is incumbent on all of us to speak out and be heard here.


best wishes

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: Rita Rodin <RRODIN@skadden.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: <phils@netsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 11:59 PM
Subject: [registrars] Re: Drafting Committee Report


> Hello - - in the interest of keeping everyone as informed as possible on
the activities of the drafting committee, I would like to report the
following.
>
> As I noted previously, due to time constraints, registrars participating
in the conference call on Friday discussed only the draft Policy and did not
comment on the draft Rules.  Accordingly, a call was scheduled for 9:00 EST
on Tuesday September 28 to go over the Rules.
>
> On Friday, I advised Louis Touton of the progress and substance of the
registrars' comments, and informed him of the Tuesday call.  I also told
Louis that the registrars participating on the Friday call were somewhat
disappointed at the relatively small participation rate, and attributed it
to the very short notice period.  We thus scheduled the next call for
Tuesday with the hope that more notice would facilitate a greater
participation rate.
>
> Louis informed me today that he had decided to post the Policy and the
Rules for public comment tomorrow, Monday night, notwithstanding that he
would not have received the registrar comments by that time, and
notwithstanding my adamant objection to this process.  I requested that at a
minimum, he clearly indicate when posting the Rules that it had not been
reviewed by, and thus was not consented to by, the registrar constituency.
>
> I suggest that we proceed with the Tuesday call as planned, but wanted
everyone to understand the process that is unfolding.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.
>