ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

  • To: <dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Michael D Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert F Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion
  • From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:21:25 -0400
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcNJteDynjfllABIRimzemQxa/j/QgAVMJlw
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

The registries suggested this as a potential topic for a coordinated
meeting, which we may schedule with them for 1/2 the day, if we manage
to coordinate our schedules.

This was just a notional schedule to give people a sense of what could
be covered during the meeting, so that they can determine whether they
support having a meeting.

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:16 PM
To: Michael D Palage; Robert F Connelly; Registrar Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

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.

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
::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,
::> -----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 ::>
::> 	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. ::> ::> ::>
::> *	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
::> *	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. ::> ::>

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