RE: [council] Registry Operators
- To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:34:02 -0700
- In-reply-to: <08D4BD54F2DA4E958846EFB95F4E5C30@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
- Reply-to: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcoEVamrQDRzJvsvTnSkZoe681bdNQAMi52wAACs2aAAA1ZesA==
Agreed, it is an old, important issue that is still unresolved and must be
resolved before the GNSO restructure can take place.
Why should the non-contracting house accept members whose interests are
purely and completely aligned with the contracting parties? Obviously,
those entities should find a place somewhere in the contracting party house
where their interests are aligned, whether as observers or whatever, but
they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are clearly
different. That would make it effectively even more impossible to develop
policy out of the non-contracting side of the house.
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:55 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
its an old debate
No no no and no.