Yes, I was going to ask this also, because from what I am hearing from
the meeting today, no one was refused.
This doesn't seem to jive with the facts.
So are those saying this in the meeting being disingenuous?
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:04:57 +0200, Roberto Gaetano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher,
>
>Am I understanding correctly, and you mean that you have been refused the
>possibility to join DNSO Working Group C on new gTLDs?
>If so, by whom and on which basis?
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Ambler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 6:08 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Rise up to the challenge.
>>
>> > In fact, we recognize the authority of ICANN, and we assume that, as
>> there
>> > are accredited Registrars, there will be accredited Registries, and
>> gTLDs
>> > will be allocated to these (accredited) Registries following a method to
>> be
>> > determined.
>> > I assume that the DNSO will provide a recommendation in this sense. In
>> fact,
>> > a working group on new gTLDs is already being formed.
>>
>> A group for which I, as a representative of the longest-standing
>> prospective
>> registry, was told, at first, that my "application" would be considered,
>> and
>> then that my contribution was not necessary.
>>
>> The DNSO is a captured entity, whos results as passed on to ICANN will
>> be as predictable as the outcome of the IAHC process. And as similar.
>>
>> Christopher
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
