<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]
- To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]
- From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:59:25 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20051031055752.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.18cbcf97ca .wbe@email.email.secureserver.net>
- References: <20051031055752.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.18cbcf97ca.wbe@email.email.secureserver.net>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 04:57 AM 10/31/05, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Some of you may not have a problem with that. I do. IMHO, *ALL*
participants on these calls should be announced. And *ALL* participants
should be informed whether or not such call is going to be recorded, or
otherwise become part of some public record. Brett was on both calls. I
don't know about the second call, but he neither announced himself or
informed anyone, including the ICANN staff, that the call was being recorded.
Dear Tim: I am in total agreement with you. Regards, BobC
To complain about ICANN conducting itself in a transparent manner on one
hand, and then support the secret recording of conversations on the other
seems a little disingenuous to me.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|