[registrars] Proposed RC Website

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

I can see Jeff's and Ross's point with regards to the RC website and I 
think we should finally do something about it.  When that's sorted 
out, perhaps then we can re-address the 'possibility' of switching 
from a mailing list to a forum.

Ross had an interesting quote in his sig file:

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow"

I feel that there are several problems with the RC today:

1) Not enough (paying/voting) members in comparison to the total 
number of accredited registrars.
2) A lack of understanding on the policies, methods (such as making a 
motion) and acronyms (assuming I'm not the only one!).
3) Registrars not being notified that the RC even exists, what it is, 
and what it does.
4) Room for improvement for participation from members.

I have always felt that a decent RC website could go a long way in 
solving some of these problems.

I have benefitted a great deal from the Registrar Constituency over 
the years and would like to give something back.  If I were to commit 
my company resources to develop and host the RC website, would others 
be willing to help direct us to missing content as needed?

If so, how should it work from here?  Do we need to pass a motion to 
agree on creating the website, or can I just start soliciting ideas 
from everyone as to what the website should include?  If the latter, 
please feel free to start submitting your suggestions.

Offhand I think the site should include the following:

1) Welcome page with a description of what the RC is, when it started, 
how it fits in with other agencies, etc.
2) Page with a list of current officers, positions held, and what 
those positions encompass.
3) List of all registrars and which are paid RC members (would this 
need to be in a private section or is it public info anyway?).
4) Legal section including RC policies and bylaws and whatnot.
5) Calendar of ICANN meetings
6) Page with links to view current ballots.
7) Ability to apply for membership (to be sent to John Berryhill's office?).
8) Page with acronyms commonly used.
9) Link to discussion board/forum.
10) Possibly a contact form (not sure who this would go to though).

Those are my initial thoughts.  Please send comments and/or additional ideas.

Does the RC own a domain to use for this website and if we move ahead 
can someone contact me about transfering it over to DomainIt?

Does the RC currently have a logo?  I've never seen one.

Once the website is up, I also think it would be *REALLY* beneficial 
if someone else could take on the task of contacting ALL current 
registrars (and new registrars as they become accredited) about the 
RC, it's benefits and how to join.  It'd be great to have a lot more 
members, more fees being paid, and more voices on each ballot.  I'm 
not sure of the current member count but the recent ballot received 
only 31 votes out of 100's of accredited registrars.

I'll await feedback from someone in authority to let me know if/when 
to proceed.

Best Regards,

~Paul
:DomainIt


At 04:34 PM 1/12/2008, Jeffrey Eckhaus wrote:

>I have to agree with Ross here. The inability to transition to a
>website/wiki/whatever shows that we are not that efficient at
>constructing new tools of communication.
>
>This system may be antiquated but it works and the reason why is
>everyone checks their email. As a group the push system works much
>better than pull.
>
>My vote is to keep the list as is
>
>
>Jeff
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
>Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:07 PM
>To: Paul Goldstone
>Cc: Peter Stevenson; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrars Constituency'
>Subject: Re: [registrars] "Registered Representative" defined; RC
>Mailing list access to be limited.
>
>
>Personally I'd prefer to leave the list as it is. The constituency  
>doesn't have a great track record of running web sites and unless we  
>can improve this, I'd really like us to leave such an important  
>element in place and operational. Its been a productive resource for  
>almost ten years - I'd hate to see our last functional communication  
>tool broken apart.
>
>On 12-Jan-08, at 12:58 AM, Paul Goldstone wrote:
>
>> As for switching from a mailing list to a forum, I assume we'd need a
>> motion, then a second, then it can go to a vote to see what everyone
>> thinks of the idea.  Bob - can you advise on this?
>
>Ross Rader
>Director, Retail Services
>t. 416.538.5492
>c. 416.828.8783
>http://www.domaindirect.com
>
>"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
>- Erik Nupponen