<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
- To: "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:07:46 +0000
- Cc: "'tbarrett'" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bhavin Turakhia'" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Kurt Pritz'" <pritz@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Message from "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net> of "Wed, 19 May 2004 15:12:11 EST." <013b01c43ddd$925e3210$14c2d241@valdes>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not going to KL, but, if none of us go, then we've said something to
ICANN they can't ignore (cause we could boycott CT too), and we're also
doing our little part to reduce ICANN's fine dining and exotic travel
budget. It is five grand saved, or paid towards keeping my ICANN chit
current.
Does anyone have a business issue that is at issue in KL that has greater
current and recurring value than getting the BOD to make fees predictable
and the model rational, or at least predictable?
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|