<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 07:25:43 -0400
- Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, Duane Connelly <duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <6.1.0.6.2.20040524233045.04246788@mail.beach.net>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <6.1.0.6.2.20040524233045.04246788@mail.beach.net>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (Windows/20040113)
On 5/25/2004 2:37 AM Robert F. Connelly noted that:
3. More of ICANN's resources are expended upon the larger registrars.
4. Most especially, large registrars with many resellers probably cause
many more vexing problems for ICANN, they are certainly a problem for
*all* registrars.
Bob - this isn't the first time that I bring this up. Drawing lines
between large registrars and small registrars causes us to have less of
a voice within ICANN. The real issue here lies with the overall size of
the budget and the economic demands of non-contributing parties. Let's
try and keep this discussion based on fact and focused on where the
heart of the matter lies.
--
-rwr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|