<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Proposed RC Website
Paul, Jon, All,
I sent this to the RC list yesterday, but it doesn't seem to have made
it. This happens from time to time.
Last night my wife asked me sweetly "Honey, how hard would it be to
convert my book to drupal?" I've set up a drupal at
http://rc.nic-naa.net, and set the permissions so that anyone who wants
to create an account can. This usually results in comment spam, so if
there is any real interest in this experiment I (or who ever wants to
run this) can change that to admin approval. If not, I'll simply change
a few config strings and my wife can use it for the traveling with
autistic children book-in-progress she's working in.
I've also set the profile so that if anyone creates an account they are
prompted for some nominally useful information:
-- corporate url
-- membership status
-- personal name
-- public contact info
-- private contact info (optional)
I've created rolls for excom, gnso, member registrars, non-member
registrars, and gtld registries. Other rolls that might be useful are
for ICANN liason(s) and for cctld registrars and registries.
There's a poll, and a couple of forums, try it out and see if you think
the medium works for you, or not.
Initially every account is simply "authenticated", if we get to the
point were there is excom or gnso content, or liaison content from {the
Registry Constituency, ICANN staff, etc.}, then that content can be
owned (created, modified, deleted) by those roles.
Again, the url is http://rc.nic-naa.net.
For the cms weenies on the list, its d6rc2.
Cheers,
Eric
Assuming these docs are all current, I'd take the following content
from the Wiki:
RC Fast Track rules
RC Rules of Procedure
RC Bylaws
List of Constituency Members
I didn't bother to import these. If the drupal is adopted, someone will,
and links work as well as imported copy.
The first 3 items will cover the legal page I suggested, and the
member list will either remain as is, or get integrated into a bigger
list of all registrars and whether they're members or not.
That just leaves the other pages I mentioned below, unless there are
any other suggestions.
I think an hour or less is rather ambitious for what I have in mind
but I appreciate Eric's input, particularly the suggestions to use CMS
and to add a function for mini polls.
OK. It took me two hours, three counting the time spent minding children.
I still think that the Forum is a great idea. It would definitely be
a link on the site, and I join Rob in thanking Dan for setting that up
and GoDaddy for hosting it. Still not figured out what my username
is, but I'm probably missing something obvious. I also agree with
Rob's point about making RC communication a priviledge to paid
members. Although the ability to vote should suffice, it seems there
needs to be some other added benefit/reason to join. Having said
that, I'm sure there are some who would argue that general RC
communication must be public (perhaps it's even a rule?).
I wasn't aware that the RC already contacted registrars to become
members, mainly because I wasn't contacted. Perhaps it's a new
effort. Either way, a better looking website, with info about the RC,
reasons to join, and an easy method to join is a good idea to get the
numbers up.
What are the next steps for getting this approved? Should I just wait
for further word after your meeting on Thursday?
Feel free to contact me off-list any time (well, not too early!) to
discuss further.
Despite my passion for curry I will not be able to make it to India,
but I'll make an effort to participate when I can by phone.
~Paul
At 08:33 AM 1/13/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
Paul:
Thanks for taking the time to send this e-mail. It's great that you are willing to step up to try to improve the constituency.
Here is the link to the Wiki site Jay developed last year.
<http://www.icannregistrars.org/>http://www.icannregistrars.org/
As you can see, it contains much of the information that you suggest, but it definitely needs updating. Our hope last year was that members would update content on the Wiki site. As Ross and Jeff have suggested, however, it's often hard to get our members to engage in this kind of endeavor. Any thoughts on this would be helpful.
Attached is a file with our logo -- I think we used it on our invoices this year.
We have an Executive Committee meeting on Thursday and will go over your suggestions/offer then, as well as our outreach efforts and how to improve on what we have done. I also will add these issues to our agenda in Delhi. Will you be in India or be able to participate on the phone?
Thanks again for your willingness to help.
Best,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:34 AM
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus
Cc: Ross Rader; Peter Stevenson; Robert F. Connelly; Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] Proposed RC Website
All,
I can see Jeff's and Ross's point with regards to the RC website and I
think we should finally do something about it. When that's sorted
out, perhaps then we can re-address the 'possibility' of switching
>from a mailing list to a forum.
Ross had an interesting quote in his sig file:
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow"
I feel that there are several problems with the RC today:
1) Not enough (paying/voting) members in comparison to the total
number of accredited registrars.
2) A lack of understanding on the policies, methods (such as making a
motion) and acronyms (assuming I'm not the only one!).
3) Registrars not being notified that the RC even exists, what it is,
and what it does.
4) Room for improvement for participation from members.
I have always felt that a decent RC website could go a long way in
solving some of these problems.
I have benefitted a great deal from the Registrar Constituency over
the years and would like to give something back. If I were to commit
my company resources to develop and host the RC website, would others
be willing to help direct us to missing content as needed?
If so, how should it work from here? Do we need to pass a motion to
agree on creating the website, or can I just start soliciting ideas
>from everyone as to what the website should include? If the latter,
please feel free to start submitting your suggestions.
Offhand I think the site should include the following:
1) Welcome page with a description of what the RC is, when it started,
how it fits in with other agencies, etc.
2) Page with a list of current officers, positions held, and what
those positions encompass.
3) List of all registrars and which are paid RC members (would this
need to be in a private section or is it public info anyway?).
4) Legal section including RC policies and bylaws and whatnot.
5) Calendar of ICANN meetings
6) Page with links to view current ballots.
7) Ability to apply for membership (to be sent to John Berryhill's office?).
8) Page with acronyms commonly used.
9) Link to discussion board/forum.
10) Possibly a contact form (not sure who this would go to though).
Those are my initial thoughts. Please send comments and/or additional ideas.
Does the RC own a domain to use for this website and if we move ahead
can someone contact me about transfering it over to DomainIt?
Does the RC currently have a logo? I've never seen one.
Once the website is up, I also think it would be *REALLY* beneficial
if someone else could take on the task of contacting ALL current
registrars (and new registrars as they become accredited) about the
RC, it's benefits and how to join. It'd be great to have a lot more
members, more fees being paid, and more voices on each ballot. I'm
not sure of the current member count but the recent ballot received
only 31 votes out of 100's of accredited registrars.
I'll await feedback from someone in authority to let me know if/when
to proceed.
Best Regards,
~Paul
:DomainIt
At 04:34 PM 1/12/2008, Jeffrey Eckhaus wrote:
I have to agree with Ross here. The inability to transition to a
website/wiki/whatever shows that we are not that efficient at
constructing new tools of communication.
This system may be antiquated but it works and the reason why is
everyone checks their email. As a group the push system works much
better than pull.
My vote is to keep the list as is
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:07 PM
To: Paul Goldstone
Cc: Peter Stevenson; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] "Registered Representative" defined; RC
Mailing list access to be limited.
Personally I'd prefer to leave the list as it is. The constituency
doesn't have a great track record of running web sites and unless we
can improve this, I'd really like us to leave such an important
element in place and operational. Its been a productive resource for
almost ten years - I'd hate to see our last functional communication
tool broken apart.
On 12-Jan-08, at 12:58 AM, Paul Goldstone wrote:
As for switching from a mailing list to a forum, I assume we'd need a
motion, then a second, then it can go to a vote to see what everyone
thinks of the idea. Bob - can you advise on this?
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|