ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period on the proposed Verisign agreement

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Bruce,<br>
Name.com LLC&nbsp; and&nbsp; Spot Domain LLC dba domainsite.com will sign.<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
Bill Mushkin<br>
<br>
Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
<blockquote
 cite="mid9A9B4ED8FC9E334AA0B654078CFDAA6F01ED2998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
 type="cite">
  <title>Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period
on the proposed Verisign agreement</title>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
  <p><font size="2">Bruce:&nbsp; Network Solutions, NameSecure, and SRSPlus
definitely will sign as well.&nbsp; Thanks. Jon<br>
  <br>
&nbsp;-----Original Message-----<br>
From: &nbsp; Ross Rader [<a href="mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
Sent:&nbsp;&nbsp; Thu Oct 27 23:18:55 2005<br>
To:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bruce Tonkin<br>
Cc:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:registrars@xxxxxxxx";>registrars@xxxxxxxx</a><br>
Subject:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment
period on the proposed Verisign agreement<br>
  <br>
Given that it has taken me the last three days just to get a hard-copy<br>
bound up so that I can read it, coupled with the fact that most<br>
registrars were only afforded an overview of this document today, the 24<br>
days seems extremely inadequate. Accommodating this request would be a<br>
small, but valued affirmation that ICANN the Entity is still willing to<br>
consider and act upon the input of ICANN the Community.<br>
  <br>
Please include Tucows Inc. as a signatory to this request.<br>
  <br>
  <br>
Bruce Tonkin wrote:<br>
&gt; Hello All,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ICANN has opened at 24 day comment period, which I assume starts
on 24<br>
&gt; October 2005, and finishes on Friday 18 Nov 2005.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I note from the ICANN bylaws - Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant
policy<br>
&gt; development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held
for<br>
&gt; discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section
6(1)(b) of<br>
&gt; this Article, prior to any final Board action."<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; (see: <a href="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III";>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III</a>)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Now I realize we can argue whether this is a policy issue or not,
but I<br>
&gt; think the spirit of the bylaws is that a major decision like this
should<br>
&gt; allow for an in-person meeting.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I also note that Verisign and ICANN have been discussing this for
about<br>
&gt; a year.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think it is reasonable that registrars and other members of the
GNSO<br>
&gt; community have the opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement
in an<br>
&gt; "in-person public Forum".,&nbsp; The most practical time to do this
would be<br>
&gt; the upcoming ICANN meeting from the 30 Nov to 4 Dec 05.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I therefore propose to send the following statement to the ICANN
Board.<br>
&gt; I would like registrars to sign-up to this statement as individual<br>
&gt; registrars (not enough time to run the formal registrars
constituency<br>
&gt; voting process).&nbsp; The more people that sign-on to this, the more
weight<br>
&gt; the statement will hold.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Please advise via the mailing list, or via email to me if you
would like<br>
&gt; to be added as a signatory.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; STATEMENT:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; "We the undersigned registrars, request that the public comment
period<br>
&gt; on the proposed agreement with Verisign be extended until Sunday 4
Dec<br>
&gt; 2005 so as to allow opportunities for in-person public discussions<br>
&gt; during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Vancouver.&nbsp; This we believe is<br>
&gt; consistent with the spirit of Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2
of the<br>
&gt; ICANN bylaws, which states that:<br>
&gt; "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant
policy<br>
&gt; development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held
for<br>
&gt; discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section
6(1)(b) of<br>
&gt; this Article, prior to any final Board action."<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Regards,<br>
&gt; Bruce Tonkin<br>
&gt; Melbourne IT<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
  <br>
  </font>
  </p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>