[council] RE: URS follow-up
jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
Fri Oct 26 18:24:18 UTC 2012
Personally, I tend to agree. There is a possibility of being too sensitive.
In any event, the first rule is to at least flag a potential conflict. I
have obviously done that.
If that raises no significant concerns or issues, I am happy to be guided by
other councillors and potentially continue to chair Council discussions on
That said, the sense I am getting is that we do not want to spend much (if
any) time on this whilst the RFI process remains open.
Regarding the detail point, good catch, it would have been more accurate to
say "... I have systems, process and related expertise which may be useful
in the design, development or provision of a URS system ..."
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of John Berard
Sent: 26 October 2012 17:27
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>; Kurt Pritz; Olof Nordling
Subject: Re: [council] RE: URS follow-up
How can you say "the provision of URS services is an area where I have some
systems, process and related expertise" when the URS doesn't yet exist?
In my view, we can go overboard with regard to conflicts. Even your
suggestion of Mason to lead the conversation can be open to criticism.
After all, why wouldn't a registry want a high price on the URS?
See how it can go?
At this point I suggest you keep your seat for this until you prove
My 2 cents.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2012, at 1:48 AM, "Jonathan Robinson"
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> wrote:
> the provision of URS services is an area where I have some systems,
process and related expertise.
More information about the council