RE: [registrars] .NET Agreement Update

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

Hello All:

I have been following this discussion and would like to offer some
recommendations that the registrar constituency may wish to consider.

During the Evolution and Reform Process the ICANN Registrar Constituency
submitted a document to the DoC supporting the Evolution and Reform
Process. The document was not in the form of a resolution but a
statement which included a list a signatories. The other important
aspect of this document was that the list included the countries
represented by the signatories and the overall market share that they
represented.

Although I have the benefit of tracking some of the discussions within
individual constituencies, most directors generally only get to see the
actual recommendation from the GNSO Council.

The statement that Bhavin read in Luxemburg which included a list of
signatories I think had an important impact as opposed to just "we the
registrar constituency...." 

I also off this suggestion in connection with the thoughtful comments by
Ross in connection with the GNSO constituency review process which
raised questions about representativeness, etc.

I was proud to serve as the chair of the ICANN registrar constituency
from its inception until my election to the ICANN Board. Although it is
not perfect, I believe it is one of the more representative
constituencies within the GNSO and plays an important role in the policy
development process. I hope that these recommendation will help in
maximizing the voice of the registrars on this important issue.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

P.S. One word of caution. You may recall that during the first Dulles
registrar meeting (2002), there was a presentation by an anti-trust
attorney. Although I appreciate the STRONG concerns of registrars
regarding the removal of the price cap in the .NET registry contract in
Jan 2007, I would urge registrars to talk about cap restrictions in
general terms. Providing specific prices etc, is something where
registrars need to tread very carefully. I will leave that to some of
the attorneys on this list to discuss. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Bhavin Turakhia
Cc: 'Robert F Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] .NET Agreement Update


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We should do both. As a symbolic gesture, I think the resolution only
gets us so far. Seeing names at the bottom of a page carries a certain
weight that gets toned down through a 3 week voting process :)

It would be useful for you to proceed with that idea Bhavin and let the
motion proceed - I don't see any conflicts between the two processes,
they are highly complementary in fact.


On 23/08/2005 4:59 AM Bhavin Turakhia noted that;
>>>Take out the abstract of changes we have made in the .NET
>>
>>RRA, and form
>>
>>>a single statement from that abstract.
>>>
>>>We will then make that statement as the Constituency's
>>
>>official position.
>>
>>Dear Ross:  If this proposal and the fleshed out document
>>meets with your approval, we may take it as a friendly 
>>amendment to your motion.  What think you?  Regards, BobC
> 
> 
> I believe me and Ross were trying the same thing essentially
> 
> bhavin
> 


- --
- --
Regards,



                       -rwr








                "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument,
                 every utensil, every article designed for use, of each
                 and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings."
                        - Robert Collier


Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFDC3vu6sL06XjirooRAi7eAJ4/krPJbNDJ4on86vbOnzT/nKIhhgCeNIW9
Tn4UhEeIDuo1AQ7mr68+w1k=
=So0F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----