<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] 12 October 2005 ICANN Board Meeting
- To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] 12 October 2005 ICANN Board Meeting
- From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:43:42 +0100
- Cc: <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>, <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx>
- References: <20051015172408.43471.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Was anything discussed or resolved about .pro and the use of 'leasing names
through a registrar' to circumvent the need for purchasers to meet the
validation criteria for .pro names as originally agreed with ICANN.
Is ICANN still pursuing a resolution of this possible subversion of the
Agreement between the .Pro registry and ICANN?
What are the implications for the equivalent validation procedures for
.travel, and other future TLDs, if the validation procedures can simply be
by-passed by registrars (or their sister companies) leasing the names to
customers instead?
Yrs,
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: [ga] 12 October 2005 ICANN Board Meeting
> Below please find the notes of ICANN Board member
> Michael Palage (already posted to the Council list and
> to the Registrars list):
[snip]...
> So that is the quick summary of a three hour marathon
> Board Call. I hope
> you find this information update informative.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|