RE: [registrars] Proposed RC Website

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

Sorry for the delay - typical Monday!

Thanks for your response about the website ideas.  I've seen the Wiki 
but like you said, it needs quite a bit of TLC.  If it's okay, I'd 
like to make a fresh start and put together something more complete 
and spruced up - something we can be proud of and use to inform others 
and attract more paying/voting members.

Assuming these docs are all current, I'd take the following content 
from the Wiki:

RC Fast Track rules
RC Rules of Procedure 
RC Bylaws
List of Constituency Members

The first 3 items will cover the legal page I suggested, and the 
member list will either remain as is, or get integrated into a bigger 
list of all registrars and whether they're members or not.

That just leaves the other pages I mentioned below, unless there are 
any other suggestions.

I think an hour or less is rather ambitious for what I have in mind 
but I appreciate Eric's input, particularly the suggestions to use CMS 
and to add a function for mini polls.

I still think that the Forum is a great idea.  It would definitely be 
a link on the site, and I join Rob in thanking Dan for setting that up 
and GoDaddy for hosting it.  Still not figured out what my username 
is, but I'm probably missing something obvious.  I also agree with 
Rob's point about making RC communication a priviledge to paid 
members.  Although the ability to vote should suffice, it seems there 
needs to be some other added benefit/reason to join.  Having said 
that, I'm sure there are some who would argue that general RC 
communication must be public (perhaps it's even a rule?).

I wasn't aware that the RC already contacted registrars to become 
members, mainly because I wasn't contacted.  Perhaps it's a new 
effort.  Either way, a better looking website, with info about the RC, 
reasons to join, and an easy method to join is a good idea to get the 
numbers up.

What are the next steps for getting this approved?  Should I just wait 
for further word after your meeting on Thursday?

Feel free to contact me off-list any time (well, not too early!) to 
discuss further.

Despite my passion for curry I will not be able to make it to India, 
but I'll make an effort to participate when I can by phone.

~Paul


At 08:33 AM 1/13/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>Paul:
> 
>Thanks for taking the time to send this e-mail.  It's great that you are willing to step up to try to improve the constituency.  
> 
>Here is the link to the Wiki site Jay developed last year.  
> 
><http://www.icannregistrars.org/>http://www.icannregistrars.org/
> 
>As you can see, it contains much of the information that you suggest, but it definitely needs updating.  Our hope last year was that members would update content on the Wiki site.  As Ross and Jeff have suggested, however, it?s often hard to get our members to engage in this kind of endeavor.  Any thoughts on this would be helpful. 
> 
>Attached is a file with our logo ? I think we used it on our invoices this year.
> 
>We have an Executive Committee meeting on Thursday and will go over your suggestions/offer then, as well as our outreach efforts and how to improve on what we have done.  I also will add these issues to our agenda in Delhi.  Will you be in India or be able to participate on the phone?  
> 
>Thanks again for your willingness to help.
> 
>Best,
> 
>Jon
> 
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone
>Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:34 AM
>To: Jeffrey Eckhaus
>Cc: Ross Rader; Peter Stevenson; Robert F. Connelly; Registrars Constituency
>Subject: [registrars] Proposed RC Website
> 
> 
>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
>