ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] FW: Inter-Agency Group

  • To: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Inter-Agency Group
  • From: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:05:38 -0600
  • Cc: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcNyPM4tPImOtxXPQ+yDaHaDS4VXJQADx7LA
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] FW: Inter-Agency Group

I have not been involved in other DOC channels since the ICANN meetings in Montreal and would be concerned that only one point of view is being portrayed by the registrar constituency.   Although Markmonitor has an IP focus, there are many registrars which service the corporate and intellectual property market that should similarly be concerned about the proposed changes to WHOIS as they affect their clients in that market.   I agree that Markmonitor's viewpoints may be different than that of retail-focused registrars,  but believe that those viewpoints would likely be represented by the other registrars participating in those discussions.    

Sincerely,

Margie 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:02 AM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Inter-Agency Group


Margie,

don't you show up at the IP side of the table? In your previous testimony
you didn't even sound like a registrar. Its your choice, but if you have
advocated a position to DOC through other channels I'd prefer if you
didn't help this time.

I would prefer this opertunity be reserved for those registrars that have
not had an oppertunity to present their position to the DoC

best,

-rick


On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Margie Milam wrote:

> I would also be interested in participating.  
> 




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