[registrars] 66% needed for approval

[Monte Cahn]

Its just one area we can explore, there are others.  I disagree with any of
you that say we do not have leverage with ICANN or the registries.  We don't
have leverage if we are not together.  We have more than enough leverage if
we are together - THE MAJORITY OF FEES ARE COMING FROM US FOLKS! 

Let's set some new rules of engagement and boundaries.


Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO
 
Monte at Moniker.com
Monte at DomainSystems.com
 
O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155
 
Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:11 AM
To: 'Rick Wesson'
Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross at tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar';
'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Rick,

Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the
ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I
am aware of. And in our dealings with them they have been more open and
responsive to input than the previous *ruling party* by leaps and bounds.

Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I
am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars
in subsequent years budget formulations.

We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very
carefully.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh at ar.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:02 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross at tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar';
'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Tim,

I just want to point out that we are already out of the process. If we were
involved we would have had more say in the development of the budget and not
be presented with a near final draft.

Our vote will have no impact on our "involvement, in ICANN" 

-rick


Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Monte,
>
>I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that 
>if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process 
>altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we 
>want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really
*approve* the budget.

>  
>