RE: [registrars] submission to House Committee - DRAFT
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] submission to House Committee - DRAFT
- From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <NFBBLJNJELIAEBHKGJNMOEKKGJAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Actually my reading of the by-laws prohibit any letter from being sent to
> Congress on behalf of the Constituency, as Congress is not an "ICANN
> Supporting Organization" or "ICANN Body".
> 1.2. The purpose of the Registrar Constituency is to represent the views and
> interests of professional domain name registrars within ICANN?s Supporting
> Organizations and other relevant ICANN bodies in all matters and issues of
> its responsibility according to the procedures set forth in the ICANN
well i'd interpret the above differently, IMHO the constituency may send
a letter if the constituency passed a motion to do so.
> If I may make a recommendation. I would just have each individual registrar
> that supports the letter to just put it on company letterhead and send it in
> directly. This would also permit registrars to make any changes they feel
> are necessary, plus it is likely to be a lot quicker.
agreed. your suggestion does sound like it would fit within the time lines
set by the committee for something to be entered into the record.
> Overall I do not believe that this letter will achieve its intended goal,
> educating or quelling Congress's concerns. To contrary, based on the mood I
> saw first hand in that room yesterday, this letter would only be viewed as
> throwing gasoline on the fire. I will explain in an email later this weekend
> why I believe this to be so, but I have other stuff that needs to be taken
> care of.
ok, i look forward to your explanation.