RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

[<dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob or Michael,
Can I get some clarification about one of the topics that would be on the
agenda

> *	ISP compatibility (a registry proposed topic)

Since we have been blended back into Info Avenue which, is an ISP provider I
am interested in this topic.

Thanks,
David Wascher

::-----Original Message-----
::From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
::[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael D Palage
::Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:02 PM
::To: Robert F Connelly; Registrar Constituency
::Subject: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion
::
::
::Bob:
::
::There are some points of clarification that I would like to make in
::connection with this post as well.
::
::First, ICANN Staff has always been supportive of the Registrar
::Constituency's supplementary meetings. Dan attended both the Dulles and
::Amsterdam meeting. The reason he did not attend the Washington meeting
::earlier this year was his wife was nine months pregnant and ready to give
::birth at any time. Thus the need for the registrars to go to
::Marina del Ray
::to be near staff is not that compelling of a reason in my books.
::
::Second, regardless of where in the world we/ICANN meets there is always an
::inconvenience to someone. Based upon the scheduled we had previously set,
::this Fall meeting should be slated for Europe or somewhere outside the US.
::Feb 2002 (Dulles); Fall 2002 (Amsterdam); Feb 2003 (Washington).
::It has been
::my experience personally planning all of these previous meetings there is
::never a universally agreed upon meeting place. However, if you look at the
::geographic location of most registrar members that are active in the
::constituency you will find that most are located in the Eastern US or
::Europe, although our friends from MIT, PSI and GMO have always done a good
::job representing the Asia Pacific Region.
::
::Third, I spoke with various registries after their bi-weekly call
::this past
::week and although they had discussed the potential of a joint meeting they
::had not yet committed to it. Moreover, all of the registries, not just the
::sponsored registries had expressed a strong desire for an East Coast
::meeting. There seems to be some wired cross in connection with what I am
::reading in your email. Did you or someone else from the ExCom speak with
::Jeff Neuman or other Registry Constituency representatives.
::
::By the way Bob, excellent job on framing the discussion of these topics
::(ballots and meeting location). Very useful.
::
::Best regards,
::
::Mike
::
::
::
::
::> -----Original Message-----
::> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
::> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
::> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:07 PM
::> To: Registrar Constituency
::> Subject: [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 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.
::>
::>
::