<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
- From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: "'Bhavin Turakhia'" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Monte Cahn'" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ross@xxxxxxxxxx, "'Rob Hall'" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jean-Michel Becar'" <jmbecar@xxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <007b01c444cb$437f42c0$fa05a8c0@TIMRUIZ>
- References: <007b01c444cb$437f42c0$fa05a8c0@TIMRUIZ>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tim,
what you experenced as "outreach" is not how those that were not contacted
percieve the same act.
ICANN is preported to the "open and transparent" standard -- when ICANN
contacts the largest of registrars regarding a budget that HARMS smaller
registrars that, my friend, is not outreach.
-rick
On Fri, 28 May 2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Bhavin,
>
> In previous years I don't think even the top 5 registrars were contacted
> during the budget formulation process. I know that Go Daddy was never
> contacted prior to this year. So I truly believe the ICANN staff made a
> concerted effort to improve on that. Still not perfect, a wider range of
> registrars should be included, but still much better.
>
> And actually, the feedback that they received from the registrars they did
> contact, as well as other stakeholders, resulted in significant reductions
> in the budget, twice. They listened!
>
> If we can reach a reasonable agreement on how best to deal with the issues
> being discussed on this list and offer constructive suggestions, I believe
> the staff will be very interested and responsive.
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|