RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elana/David:

I believe the issues that the registries are trying to raise involves ISP
that are not providing universal resolution of the new TLDs particularly the
sponsored ones. If you refer to Appendix E of the draft RFP you will see
this topic discussed in further detail.
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm. In Montreal
the ISP Constituency took issue with the use of the world "filter" in the
report. That is why I choose to use the word resolution.

I hope that helps.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Michael D Palage; Robert F Connelly;
> Registrar Constituency
> Subject: RE: [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.
>
> 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. ::> ::>
> ::
>
>