<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: URS follow-up
- To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] RE: URS follow-up
- From: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:26:35 -0700
- Cc: "<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <000f01cdb356$a77da0c0$f678e240$@ipracon.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD1F3909F77@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <000f01cdb356$a77da0c0$f678e240$@ipracon.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jonathan,
How can you say "the provision of URS services is an area where I have some
systems, process and related expertise" when the URS doesn't yet exist?
In my view, we can go overboard with regard to conflicts. Even your suggestion
of Mason to lead the conversation can be open to criticism. After all, why
wouldn't a registry want a high price on the URS?
See how it can go?
At this point I suggest you keep your seat for this until you prove otherwise!
My 2 cents.
Berard
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2012, at 1:48 AM, "Jonathan Robinson"
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the provision of URS services is an area where I have some systems, process
> and related expertise.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|