Re: [registrars] FW: Registrar Failover Working Group Invitation

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > This is purely a registrar matter 
> Agree. Wasn't the original group he refers to just Registrars? Or did
> another group convene after this one:
> http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08nov01.htm
Unknown. ICANN's interpretation of transparency doesn't include 
publishing reports that always include the names of the parties to the 
deliberation or consistently updating historical documents to refer to 
any further developments that may have happened. The website documents 
are unclear at best. Perhaps Mike Zupke could clarify this for us. As 
you may have noticed from my tone, I'm not inclined to leave much as a 
matter of faith when it comes to ICANNs actions as I have in the past. 
Each time that we do, a slightly different interpretation gets 
implemented and we're left wondering why we didn't ask more 
questions...(Sorry folks, but fool me once...)
> In any event, we need to weigh in on this, although the timing seems a
> bit retaliatory. Or maybe it's an attempt at distraction?
Agree - on all three points :)