ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:49:18 -0700
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Marcus Faure <faure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ross, I resonded before seeing the whole thread that included your
clarification. If&nbsp;I&nbsp;had seen it first, I still would have
replied with pretty much the same points. I don't mean to attack
anyone, I have a lot of respect for what you and what Brett do and
accomplish within the community. But that doesn't change my opinion
about&nbsp;disclosure&nbsp;of all&nbsp;participants on a call, and
whether or not it is being recorded.<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>VP, Domain
Services<BR>The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new post<BR>on Internet
Pro Radio | icann.Blog]<BR>From: Ross Rader
&lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, October 31, 2005 8:30 am<BR>To:
Tim Ruiz &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Faure<BR>&lt;faure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Seeing as how I
was the only one that responded to Marcus, I can only <BR>assume that
you are addressing me Tim. And I'm really not sure why all <BR>the
fuss. I neither complained about the staff nor indicated that I had
<BR>a problem with anyone's actions. I was merely responding to a
question <BR>that Marcus asked me about a broken URL - and promptly
issued a <BR>clarification to my earlier statement once Bret corrected
my understanding.<BR><BR>Am I missing something? The multitude of
responses on this subject this <BR>morning, after the fact, is
completely puzzling.<BR><BR>-ross<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>&gt; The
invitation was sent to the Registrars list as an invitation to <BR>&gt;
Registrars. This is of course a public list and some may feel that it is
then <BR>&gt; appropriate to attend these calls without announcing
themselves, and to record <BR>&gt; them without informing the
participants that they are being recorded.<BR>&gt; &nbsp;<BR>&gt; Some
of you may not have a problem with that. I do. IMHO, *ALL* participants
on <BR>&gt; these calls should be announced. And *ALL* pariticipants
should be <BR>&gt; informed whether or not such call is going to be
recorded, or otherwise become <BR>&gt; part of some public record.
Brett was on both calls. I don't know about the <BR>&gt; second call,
but he neither announced himself or informed anyone, including the
<BR>&gt; ICANN staff, that the call was being recorded.<BR>&gt;
&nbsp;<BR>&gt; To complain about ICANN conducting itself in a
transparent manner on one hand, <BR>&gt; and then support the secret
recording of conversations on the other seems a <BR>&gt; little
disingenuous to me.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Tim Ruiz<BR>&gt; VP,
Domain Services<BR>&gt; The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>&gt; Office:
319-294-3940<BR>&gt; Fax: 480-247-4516<BR>&gt; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
&lt;mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
&nbsp; &nbsp; -------- Original Message --------<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
Subject: Re: [registrars] [Fwd: [Lextext] Bret Fausett has a new
post<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; on Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog]<BR>&gt;
&nbsp; &nbsp; From: Ross Rader &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp;
&nbsp; Date: Sun, October 30, 2005 10:13 am<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; To:
Marcus Faure &lt;faure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp;
&nbsp; Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; I
understand that Bret has pulled one of the recordings because of
legal<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; concerns raised by a person or persons on
the second call.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; Which is unfortunate -
ICANN has a mandate to conduct itself in a<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
transparent manner, my expectation has always been that these calls
are<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; a part of the public record.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
&nbsp; &nbsp; Marcus Faure wrote:<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;
Hi,<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; I
only found a recording of the first session which I attended -
could<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; someone send a link to the
second sessions's mp3?<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; Yours,<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;
Marcus<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ross
Rader wrote:<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;&gt;&gt; For those of you that chose not to participate in the
official<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; constituency briefing
sessions scheduled by the ICANN Staff for<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;&gt;&gt; yesterday, Bret Fausett has made MP3's of both calls
available.<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;
Special thanks to Bret for the contribution.<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; -ross<BR>&gt;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; <BR>&gt;

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