RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
- To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
- From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:47:04 +0530
- Cc: "'Diane Schroeder'" <diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB5401FAF18C@balius.mit>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcXfhn72gP8y9VYwR6utJGOHeYDtbQABGuig
Let me run you through a typical meeting agenda
* Opening, registration, introduction - 45 minutes
* Constituency closed matters - memberships, websites, dues, motions,
changes etc - 1 to 2 hours
* meeting with icann staff - 3 to 4 hours (includes discussions on many many
* meeting with icann board and paul twomey (separately) - 1 hour
* various task force reports - 1-2 hours
* joint meeting with registry constituency - 2 hours
* miscellaneous items - 1 hour
Therefore we are looking at a total standard agenda time of between 10 to 13
Add lunch and breaks and you get 13 to 15 hours of meeting time required
I havent included ANY vendor meetings above nor any miscellenous issues
above. Typically every meeting I find 3 to 4 more items get added to the
above list. This time around for instance I know that registrars will want
to have a separate closed session on dotcom issues itself. Which will end up
taking atleast an hour.
Add to that I have been desperately trying to find time slots for joint
constituency meetings with the other constituencies (ALAC, IP, Biz) etc
...... But havent managed to do that as effectively as I would want to.
Given the above schedule we would need a minimum of 1.5 days if not more.
1.5 days would mean I would still need to compromise on some aspects of the
I would also disagree that we have been non-productive in the last 2
meetings. Luxembourg was a little more relaxed, but we still needed the
entire time to cover all the aspects. Generally when the meetings are one
day it is an impossible task to schedule all of the above, and we always get
a feeling that we are rushing through things without concluding any item.
Infact in most earlier meetings I recall as a member of the audience I would
always leave with the feeling that we all just end up talking but we don't
end up doing much.
As opposed to that in the last 2 meetings, I have actually felt more stuff
gets done, and we don't have to rush through items or leave decisions for
later. I have always been insistent in all these meetings about closing
issues then and there, and getting feedback on an immediate basis. As a
result of that we end up actually progressing with respect to task forces,
or by-law changes, or transfer work group reccommendations or
reccommendations to the registries etc etc. I, personally, would prefer to
have more than a day, so as to ensure that the same trend continues, and
stuff actually gets done.
I know that the scheduling this time has resulted in many overlapping items
that Registrars should attend. However, worst case scenario, we should
atleast squeeze in an additional half day to give justice to the agenda.
Diane has also assured me that going forward scheduling in future meetings
will take into account a 2 day slot for Registrar meetings, and hopefully we
will be able to schedule meetings in the future keeping in mind that
registrars would have a 2 day timeslot.
Infact, we may probably want to look at doing the first day of the meeting,
one day earlier, just like GAC, so as to prevent any conflicts with the rest
of the agenda.
Let me know if you need to discuss this on the phone. I am happy to call
you. Or you may dial me anytime
Founder, Chairman & CEO
Board (US): +1 (415) 240 4171 ext 7600
Fax (US): +1 (320) 210 5146
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:52 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
> 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.
> Bruce Tonkin
> Member of registrar constituency