RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion

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

Paul:

I am a little busy but I will try to dig through the old archives. I
understand that eNom, GoDaddy, Dotster & AR would appreciate a short trip
down the West Coast as opposed to a five-hour cross country flight. Anytime
I can avoid a few hours in a airplane I jump at the opportunity.

Regarding West Coast registrar participation, there were a lot of East Coast
and International registrars that complained when the first 3 ICANN regional
meetings were all held in the Southern California area (1999, 2000 & 2001).
If that didn't motivate participation from West Coast registrars, I do not
know what could. As I said, ICANN always has a way of spreading the pain
around when it comes to travel.

If the registrars were to decide to have a West Coast meeting this time, I
think it would be important to ensure that the next meeting is outside the
US for purposes of ensuring diversity.

Just my two cents.

Mike






> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:57 AM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'registrars@xxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency Meeting Discussion
>
>
> Michael,
>
> 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
> also
> 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
> suggest
> 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
> location.
>
> Paul
>
> -----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
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >
>