ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

  • To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver
  • From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:42:12 -0500
  • Cc: "'Diane Schroeder'" <diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <200511020917.jA29H7SY010698@pechora.icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I believe you both make some valid points and I was wondering if either
of you would mind some personal input based upon my former experience as
chair of the registrar constituency.

I believe the priorities Bruce has set out for this meeting are very
important. I think the lack of meaningful registrar participation during
some of the scheduled/tentative events would be detrimental toward the
overall success of these events as registrars bring a tremendous amount
of real world experience to some of these discussion.

However, I agree with Bhavin that trying to get a whole agenda fit into
one day is difficult if not impossible. Prior to the registrars shifting
to a two day format, the registrars experimented with an informal
meeting the evening before as most attendees were already at the venue.
Perhaps a survey of those registrars planning on attending and when they
are scheduled to arrive may permit for a session Monday evening, coupled
with Ross' and Bruce's suggestions on how to make the Tuesday's session
more efficient?

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:17 AM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Diane Schroeder'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

Hi bruce,

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

* 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 hours

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 agenda.

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

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


Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, Chairman & CEO
Tel: +91-22-56797600
Fax: +91-22-56797510
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.
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Member of registrar constituency

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