ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
  • From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:30:07 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <780A738C62DA734987AC5BD2A90961D13E1995@cbiexm01dc.cov.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acol4qSqLp/ooEm2QFSP+2/MvQSl0gANfjNgAFHZoRAAL2SKgAAGePw2
  • Thread-topic: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published

Kristina, Mike, Chuck, et.al.:

So these meetings were started as meetings between ICANN and gTLD registrars to 
promote understanding of registrar obligations under the RAA - i.e., to improve 
compliance with RAA contractual conditions. These meetings were especially 
necessary and useful in certain regions outside the US where, it was thought, 
that registrar obligations were not well understood. With the accreditation of 
new registrars, the meetings continue to be very useful for that reason. 
Registrar fees are used to improve contractual compliance. These discussions 
are necessarily between ICANN and its contracted parties.

After having meetings for this purpose in Europe and Asia, we received requests 
to have a similar meeting in North America. Since then, we have had three 
annual meetings in each of the three regions. After the first meeting or two, 
Registries asked to be included. Since a large part of the discussion about 
ensuring a good registrant experience is related to the registry-registrar 
relationship, registry participation was welcomed. I can understand how 
participation can seem both obligatory and onerous to registries to some extent 
- registries generally attend events in all three regions where registrars only 
attend the event in their region.

The initial meetings were some of the early significant outreach events 
conducted by ICANN, especially in Asia. Since funding was not available then 
(and we seek to act responsibly and economically now), we asked participants to 
sponsor segments - someone pays for lunch, someone pays for dinner, someopne 
pays for coffee. This year, among others, Afilias sponsored the baseball game 
trip, Tucows sponsored a dinner, ICANN paid for the meeting room, the meeting 
planning and coffee. We split the costs. Every participant pays their own way.

In this meeting in Toronto we discussed in detail the plan for transfer of 
registry operations in the event of a failure and, in a separate session, data 
transition for terminated registrars. Both these measures are being implemented 
for the protection of registrants. Both these measures require detailed 
discussions among registries, registrars and ICANN.

Contractual compliance improvements

Protection of registrants

Split the costs

Implement continuity procedures


On 8/28/09 1:58 PM, "Kristina Rosette" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Gee, Mike, didn't you read the FY2010 budget as approved by the Board?  I 
thought the only two constituencies that exist are the contracted party 
constituencies.  After all, they're the only ones mentioned in the budget. (See 
Constituency Support sections of the Organizational Activities (Section 4.7, p. 
11) and Operating Plan Activities (Appendix A (A.7), p. 34-35)).

Setting aside the irony of only mentioning 2 of 6 constituencies in the budget 
at a time when we're told that increasing the breadth and depth of stakeholder 
participation is an organizational goal, I agree that it would be valuable to 
have the same special access to information and presentations.  Personally 
though, I'd prefer to participate remotely.  I already spend about 1 month each 
year traveling to and attending ICANN meetings. That's enough for me.

There is a little value in being excluded, though.   I've definitely gotten 
mileage out of describing these meetings to the outside world; if we were 
included, I wouldn't be able to do that. . .

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:58 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published

Thanks Glen.

Just curioius, when is the next regional meeting of the non-contracting parties 
scheduled?  Many of us would be very interested to have some of these same 
discussions and staff presentations, without the contracting parties around.  
Such meetings might surely enhance knowledge and foster better cooperation 
between ICANN and its NON-contracted stakeholders.

Really, are these regional meetings really necessary when there are 3 ICANN 
meetings a year already?  And the contracting parties constantly and 
ubiquitously complaining about travel funding for ICANN Staff and volunteers??

Also, no mention of the Afilias-sponsored Major League Baseball game in this 
note, but is it a conflict of interest for contract parties to provide perks to 
ICANN Staff?  (I presume some were sponsored, but I do not know.)  If so, 
should they be publicly disclosed somewhere?  Is there a policy on that?
Just curious, as it seems there ought to be one if there's not.


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:46 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published



Toronto Presentations Published

25 August 2009

On 20-21 August 2009, ICANN hosted its North American Registry/Registrar 
Regional Event in Toronto, Ontario. Remote participation for the event was made 
available via Adobe Connect and an audio conference bridge.

The regional event model was introduced in 2006 as a means to inform and 
educate gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars about ICANN activities 
and processes that may impact their operations. These events also broaden 
participation in the ICANN multi-stakeholder governance model for registry and 
registrar staff members who do not generally attend ICANN's annual public 
meetings. ICANN subject matter experts facilitated discussions on issues such 
as gTLD registry continuity, contractual compliance, new gTLDs, GNSO policy 
activities, security initiatives, the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, 
and the terminated registrar transition process.
Such discussions enhance knowledge and foster better cooperation between ICANN 
and its contracted stakeholders.

The Toronto event also featured a session on registry/registrar areas of 
interest that was facilitated by David Maher, Chair, Registry Constituency, and 
Mason Cole, Chair, Registrar Constituency. The chairs co-led a discussion about 
how the two groups might work better together on joint areas of interest such 
as electing leaders for the GNSO Council and engaging in discussions when new 
registry service requests, submitted via the Registry Services Evaluation 
Process (RSEP), have the potential to impact registrars.

In the interest of transparency, the presentations are being made public.

The following information is available about the event:

*       Master PPT presentation:
[PDF, 11,100K]
*       New gTLDs:
9-en.pdf [PDF, 369K]


Thursday 20 August 09

Friday 21 August 09


gTLD Registry Continuity Plan Workshop
- Patrick Jones (pages 3-33)

Contractual Compliance
- Stacy Burnette (pages 84-96)



New RAA Implementation - Tim Cole


Core Planning Team Meeting/Registry Data Escrow - Patrick Jones




Registry/Registrar Dialogue
nto-20aug09-en.pdf>  - David Maher and Mason Cole


Welcome/Introductions/Key Messages - Craig Schwartz/Tim Cole


ICANN Policy
- Margie Milam (pages 38-75)


Registry Presentations





Registry Presentations

Registrar Constituency Update
toronto-20aug09-en.pdf>  - Mason Cole


Terminated Registrar Transition Process - Mike Zupke

- Yurie Ito (pages 103-134)






New gTLDs
09-en.pdf>  - Kurt Pritz

National Cyber Forensic Training Alliance 
(NCFTA) (pages 136-155)




Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>