RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rick,

Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the
ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I
am aware of. And in our dealings with them they have been more open and
responsive to input than the previous *ruling party* by leaps and bounds.

Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I
am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars
in subsequent years budget formulations.

We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very
carefully.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:02 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar';
'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Tim,

I just want to point out that we are already out of the process. If we 
were involved we would have had more say in the development of the 
budget and not be presented with a near final draft.

Our vote will have no impact on our "involvement, in ICANN" 

-rick


Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Monte,
>
>I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if
>we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All
>we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN
>directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget.

>  
>