Re: [registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.
- To: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.
- From: Paul Westley <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:56:29 +0100
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I endorse putting this issue to a ballot.
At 18:06 13/07/03, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
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.
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
* 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:
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
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.
BobC, Secretary of RC.