ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

  • To: Marcus Faure <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 10:33:07 -0500
  • Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <200511020903.jA2932Je013585@brian.voerde.globvill.de>
  • Organization: Tucows Research & Innovation
  • References: <200511020903.jA2932Je013585@brian.voerde.globvill.de>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051004)

I have to say that I agree with Bruce to the extent that we don't have solid agenda yet.

Might I suggest that instead of trying to fill up two days, or limit ourselves to one, that we immediately draft up a much tighter agenda that outlines exactly what topics we need to discuss and how much time we need to allocate to each? For instance, I can't imagine what we would need to engage the staff over for a period of four hours. Filling in the blanks on this agenda will make it much clearer how much time we will need during the Vancouver meeting.

Lastly, we should reconsider re-implementing our interstitial meetings. I found these very useful in helping the constituency deal proactively with administrative and policy matters. By trying to come to conclusion on many of these items at the ICANN meeting, we are often left dealing with issues reactively.

Marcus Faure wrote:
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

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

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