[registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Registrars:  I have been directed to initiate the 14 day discussion on 
this issue:
LA MEETING

Explanation:  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 care

Pursuant 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 choices

Pursuant 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.