<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Budget item -- business continuity plan
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Budget item -- business continuity plan
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:38:36 +0000
- Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Message from "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> of "Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:29:04 MST." <6.1.0.6.2.20040630102717.03c51ec0@mail.beach.net>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Damn Bob, that had me laughing.
On the other list (union of micro-revolutionary-registrars) I've been
attempting to point out that no registrar actually notices when ICANN
doesn't answer the phone, and therefore that a wicked expensive BCP is
either padding, or some other ICANN constituency actually cares more
than registrars do, if the phone rings for a while. Incidently, that
"cares more" is actually conjecture on my part. No one seems to know
why there is a BCP on budget.
Now, back to the classical "who pays" rather than "for what" ping-pong
between the fixed and the transactional camps.
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|