[registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.
Dear Registrars: I have been directed to initiate the 14 day discussion on this issue:
LA MEETINGExplanation: The next official ICANN meeting is planned for Carthage, Tunisia during October 27-31, 2003. While we would encourage everyone to attend the meeting, we have heard from many registrars that they are unlikely to attend. In fact, we would be interested to know who is planning to attend that meeting.
In order to support registrar participation and foster dynamic discussion of issues, there is a motion to hold an interim informal meeting. We are coordinating with the registry constituency to schedule a mutually agreeable meeting time and place to allow for part of the agenda to be a concurrent registrar-registry meeting.
The venue proposed and most discussed during the Montreal meeting was Marina del Rey
for several reasons.One, we would be able to meet with ICANN staff, who had not travelled to the Washington, D.C. meeting. Two, we would accommodate registrars for whom Tunisia is geographically more challenging for example, Asian and West Coast N. American registrars. Three, the registries have agreed to meet concurrently with us, and are planning for a U.S. location. It should be noted, however, that the unsponsored TLD registries, such as com/net/org/biz/info/pro, could come to Marina del Rey, but the sponsored ones (museum, aero, coop) would prefer the East Coast and may not make it to the West Coast.
The proposed dates are Friday, September 12, or 19, in order to allow registrars to get cheaper flights as they could stay during the weekend. If anyone has a strong preference, please express it on the list, so the Ex.Com. can take it into account in making plans.
No decisions would be made at this interim meeting, so anyone unable to make it should not feel disadvantaged. Moreover, we will endeavor to set up telecommunication links. The initial proposed agenda (in no particular order) would include the topics below. The meeting would be conducted in interactive workshop-style sessions where appropriate, with guest expert speakers invited for many of the topics. Finally, a part of the day would be devoted to a joint meeting with the registry constituency to discuss the topics below or others of mutual interest. It would be highly valuable for us to meet with the registries as the two provider groups need to coordinate our policies and activities. So we would encourage you to allow the ExCom to remain flexible about the date and time of the meeting.
PROPOSED AGENDA * Meeting with ICANN staff Paul Twomey, Dan Halloran, Ellen Sondheim; * Transfers update on implementation of new policy; * Whois update on work of the privacy steering group; * New TLDs update on ICANN process for choosing new TLDs and for reviewing those chosen in 2000; * Fraudulent credit card charge backs risk sharing with the registries; * WLS update on service; * IDN update on service; * EPP update on transition to EPP by the registries; * ISP compatibility (a registry proposed topic) * Providers (registrars/registries) position regarding the new ICANN; * Registrar Constituency budget review and discussion. We would encourage additional thoughts on the agenda, as soon as possible. The specific motions are: BALLOT ISSUE ONE Endorse a registrar constituency meeting in September: a) Yes b) No c) Don't carePursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion received 5 endorsements at the Montreal meeting. It will be put to a vote under the current voting procedures after a 14-day discussion period. During this discussion, amendments may be offered. Friendly amendments will be accepted and such changes made to the ballot. Unfriendly amendments will receive a separate ballot process, including the requirement for endorsements.
BALLOT ISSUE TWO Express a preference for place: a) West Coast of N. America b) East Coast of N. America c) Europe d) Flexible The final ballots will be crafted to reflect these choicesPursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion needs 5 endorsements. It will be put to a vote under the current voting procedures after a 14-day discussion period. During this discussion, amendments may be offered. Friendly amendments will be accepted and such changes made to the ballot. Unfriendly amendments will receive a separate ballot process, including the requirement for endorsements.
end quote: Respectfully submitted, BobC, Secretary of RC.