Re: [registrars] Proposed RC Website

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Goldstone wrote:
> 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
> >     
>
>
>   
Paul,

My $.02 is (a) leave the list alone, it works. (b) put up the cms of 
your choice on some reasonable platform and start. I'd use drupal and 
create roles for the excom, voting members (not me, i still haven't 
decided), icann-accredited registrars, other-accredited registrars, 
registries, icann staff and other,  enable polls so we could amuse 
ourselves on whether killing the mailing list is a good idea or not, 
enable forums so people can chat about India or hotels, and just do it. 
That part is about an hour's time. Less if you have a business unit that 
does cms hosting.
Best if mysql5.x, php5.x, any reasonable *nix.x, and drupal 5.x, and 
someone can tart up a theme if they want to make it look unique. The "
commit my company resources to develop and host the RC website" is 
really minimal for a good cms after the initial install, and for most of 
the day-to-day is no more complicated than blogging.
The really fixed stuff can be wiki'd, the FAQish kinds of things, like 
"what is domain tasting" or "who have been excom or candidates since day 
zero".
Eric