ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

[registrars] Fwd: ICANN India

  • To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN India
  • From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:49:18 -0500
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jon,

If you're the right person to ask, would you mind clarifying the 
following for myself and the group, in anticipation for future meetings:

1) Is it acceptable for people on the phone to also participate in RC 
meetings, or are they only permitted to listen?

2) Is it possible for people to attend other ICANN meetings by phone 
or only the RC meeting?

3) Is it possible/acceptable to record the RC meetings and make them 
available for download (by members only) via the new website eventually?

Thanks,

~Paul
:DomainIt


>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:52:48 -0500
>To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: ICANN India
>
>All,
>
>I just wanted to express my gratitude again to everyone who made it 
>out to the ICANN conference in India.  It was a late night/morning 
>here in EST but I was pleased to have the opportunity to attend the RC 
>meeting by phone.
>
>There were times I would have liked to express my opinions but the 
>phone connection wasn't great.  I know there was at least one time 
>that Tim from GoDaddy tried to make comments too.  For future 
>meetings, assuming the phone connection is clear, is it acceptable for 
>people on the phone to also participate, or are they only permitted to listen?
>
>Furthermore, is it possible for people to attend other ICANN meetings by 
>phone or is that only for the RC meeting?
>
>In regards to the RC meeting itself, there was a lot of healthy 
>discussion and great points were made.  I was somewhat disappointed to 
>not hear more comments on the option for providing additional 
>allowance at times when the suggested threshold was exceeded due to 
>testing or fraud.  I think it may have been mentioned but I would have 
>liked more weight to be given that point.  It could have also been 
>clarified that Nominet currently has this very discretionary method in place.
>
>I also felt that several people made great points against locking 
>domains for 60 days following a whois update.  Elliot in particular 
>made some incredibly strong arguments and I agree with his statements. 
> I couldn't tell who, but either Kurt or Paul stated that it is under 
>review whether those actions are against policies, and that they'd get 
>back to us within a week.  I'm eager to hear their final decision.
>
>As an aside, I don't know if this is acceptable or not, but I wonder 
>if it'd be possible to record the RC meetings and make them available 
>for download (by members only) via the website eventually.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>~Paul
>:DomainIt




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