ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Discussion of Motion on TF 1&2 report.

  • To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Discussion of Motion on TF 1&2 report.
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:59:51 -0500
  • Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, RC Voting Members <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <6.2.0.14.2.20050123165140.03afeeb0@pop3.loadmail.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <6.2.0.14.2.20050123165140.03afeeb0@pop3.loadmail.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
Robert F. Connelly wrote:

Think about this, I've expected right along that we would find very little that we could like in the TF 3 report. In my opinion, it will not be well taken if we cannot find anything in any of the reports which we can accept as written.

WRT the TF3 Report - there isn't one. If and when there is, we'll have to form a position on it.

WRT to the TF1/2 Reports - we must continue to work with the rest of the community to ensure that we arrive at a position that we can all live with, but that doesn't mean that we have to settle for a position that we can't possibly live with.

Are you proposing that the Constituency endorses the TF1/2 Reports?

--





                      -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>