[registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

In the past few ICANN meetings, the registrars constituency has arranged
for two full days of meetings.

I found at least in Luxembourg that we are not that productive over two
days, and I often find that I have other commitments so usually can't
attend two full days.

At this stage, Thursday 1 Dec 2005 has been allocated for constituency
meetings.

I have been asked what other day registrars would like allocated to the
registrar constituency.

In the upcoming meeting in Vancouver there are some substantial
workshops on issues such as WSIS, IDNs, DNSSEC, WHOIS etc - where I
think registrars need to participate and ensure that our voice is heard
by other parts of the ICANN community.  These workshops will be held on
Tuesday/Wed/Fri.  I recommend against scheduling a full day of registrar
meetings in parallel.

I recommend instead the following approach:

- using the registrars mailing list for reports/updates on activities
where we are not expecting significant interaction  (e.g report on
registrars website, budget, etc)

- use a registrars teleconference for dealing with issues that are
internal to the constituency - e.g administrative matters such as rules
of procedure etc

- let vendors arrange their own events to present on their new or
existing tld

- use the physical meeting time in Vancouver to discuss issues where the
registrars need to make coherent public statements etc (e.g .com
agreement), or where registrars need to seek support from other parts of
the ICANN  community (e.g WHOIS) for policy change

I note also that many registrars will be getting together for a meeting
with Verisign after the ICANN event - so this is also an opportunity for
further discussions and interaction amongst registrars.

Thus I recommend that we restrict the registrars-only meeting in
Vancouver to a single full day - Thursday 1 Dec 2005.

Given the importance of the proposed .com agreement, I think it maybe
useful for the registrars to pro-actively organise a public workshop
(e.g on Tuesday afternoon) to discuss this topic in detail.  I think we
need to be well prepared beforehand to have some initial outcomes that
the registrars are seeking, and use the workshop to encourage other
parts of ICANN (e.g ALAC etc) to participate and support the registrars.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Member of registrar constituency