RE: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Understood Bob. Thanks for the explanation. 


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with 
"forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, July 29, 2007 7:48 pm
To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,  RC Voting
Members <votingmembers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 01:39 PM 7/29/2007 Sunday  -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:

Dear Tim:  I agree with the first two paragraphs of your thoughtful
posting.

However, if we go in the direction Bob is suggesting, basically forced
membership, then I will definitely have a problem if there is no voting
consideration being given to the other registrars we will, in affect, be
forced into paying membership for.
Tim, when did I saw "force"?  What I did point out was that your fine
firm has signed a number of statements letting the outside readership
think that those other accreditations are members of the Constituency.  

I think Godaddy should be able to do just what it did, but it would be
more fair is its contributions to RC were enhanced to show your
appreciation for the use of this valuable forum. 

I had an alternate proposal I made to Excom.  If there is to be value to
the work of our paid consultant, it will probably be of benefit to all
registrars, especially the large ones with multiple accreditations.  I
proposed a "pledge" which would be called up if and when there is an
issue handled by the paid consultant.  My idea was not persuasive to
Excom.

Personal regards, 
BobC