ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

  • To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'registrars@xxxxxxxx'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion
  • From: Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:56:39 -0700
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I do not recall a "previously set" meeting schedule.
Please send me the posting regarding it.
I doubt it restricts the registrars meeting locations to the following:
A)on the east coast of the US,
B)in Europe or C) a location most convenient for the registries.

I also disagree that most registrars are in the eastern US or Europe.
There are a number on the west coast of the US, and as you mention there are
registrars in Australia and Asia.  Maybe if we had more meetings in those
locations there would be even more "active" registrars there.
We've had 2 meetings on the east coast (both in DC) and one in Europe.
I agree that the meeting location always inconvenience members, but I
we don't consistently inconvenience the same ones.
Before we go back to the east coast or Europe,
I think it is high time to have one on the west coast of the US or Asia.
Marina Del Ray is a good location.  I support it.

I'm sure all the registries will show up no matter where the meeting is.
They fly around the planet to talk to us one at a time, after all.
If the registries want to pay for our travel costs, then they can pick the


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:02 AM
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:
> 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.
> *	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:
> 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.
> 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 >>>