RE: [registrars] Conflicts of interest with respect to Verisign's Sitefinder service

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Elana,

> Bruce - thank you for this post.  Would you please clarify in 
> what capacity you are serving on the VeriSign group.  
> Specifically, is it related to your GNSO Council position?  

No it is unrelated.  I am volunteering on behalf of Melbourne IT.
I have agreed to chair several meetings over a period of 1 week.

Also see Melbourne IT letter to Paul Twomey at:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/hnarakis-to-twomey-02oct03.htm
Which sets out the Melbourne IT position on this matter.


> If it is not, I note that the site refers to your Council 
> chairmanship, leaving an impression that you may represent 
> the Council or the registrars' views.  I am not sure that 
> would be appropriate, given the recent ballots passed by the 
> Registrars Constituency and the GNSO Council.
> 

The Verisign site at:
http://www.verisign.com/nds/naming/sitefinder/trp.html
Has been updated to remove mention of the GNSO.

I am not representing the GNSO Council views or the registrars views on
that committee.
Both the GNSO Council views and the registrars views are already
documented on the ICANN website at:
http://www.icann.org/general/wildcard-history.htm

I recommend registrars provide details of problems encountered with the
service to the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee meeting
on 7 October 2003, and also provide issues directly to Verisign.

Regards,
Bruce