RE: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, we've probably worn this one out.  It's not as complicated as this
and we disagree with the "unity that is ICANN" idea that would suggest
everyone is a party to the contract -- as it applies to registrars or
any other contracted individual or entity.

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 4:20 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes



On 21 May 2010, at 19:02, Mason Cole wrote:

> If all of ICANN is contracted, it's interesting then that the GNSO has
a
> non-contracted house.



Nice argument, I appreciate it.

We are non-contracted in so far as we are individual members of the
Stakeholder Groups.  

As part of the unity that is ICANN we are part of ICANN who is party to
the contract.

The real paradox is that as a registrar you are both an individually
contracted party as well as part of the unity that is ICANN as a party
to the contract.

a.