ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

  • To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
  • From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:03:02 +0100 (CET)
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB5401FAF18C@balius.mit> from Bruce Tonkin at "Nov 2, 2005 07:21:59 pm"
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Bruce,

I do not think the time we spent in Luxembourg was unproductive, it was merely
unsuccessful. In the light of the .com events I do not think that it would
be a good idea to reserve less time for rc meetings, I therefore suggest to
stay with the two days.


> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>