RE: [council] UDRP issues report discussion

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Tim.  I didn't believe that he was speaking for the RrSG, but it's the 
second time he's made the same statement (which I've paraphrased) and I wanted 
to find out whether the statement was made and it struck me as odd that there 
had been no response/comment from the RrSG. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:29 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [council] UDRP issues report discussion

Not ignoring this request Kristina, we just want to confirm one way or the 
other. But I will say that the RySG councilors do not speak for the RrSG and I 
don't think that is what Jeff intended. I believe he was referencing 
discussions we have had in our House, certainly not an official position. 
Again, I will try to confirm an actual position.

Tim

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 18, 2011 4:23 am
To: "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To point out the obvious:
 
If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line 
because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and 
changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution. 
The other one is to amend the RAA accordingly.
 
Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as 
coming out of the registry-registrar meeting.  I'd be interested in getting 
confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization  is accurate.
 
Thanks.
 
K