Re: [registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.

[Paul Westley <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi guys,

I endorse putting this issue to a ballot.

Kind regards,

Paul Westley


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:
> 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.