Re: [registrars] Proposed RC Website

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

Thanks for the vote of confidence and your detailed reply.  I 
apologise for not including you in my rant about getting so few respondents.

I know these are really back to basics ideas and probably boring some 
of the seasoned members.  It's not the usual legal and political stuff 
that's discussed, but hopefully this can help get us closer to the 
point where everyone (current and new) understands the RC enough to 
participate (if they want).

I understand that a large number of registrars often belong to the 
same companies, but whether they pay single or multiple RC dues they'd 
still only receive a single vote, right?  With that in mind, multiple 
dues would just be charity so I can't see it happening.

It's great that Jay gathered and posted the Bylaws and Rules in one 
place.  I've always admired his comments to the list, his sites and 
his tools, and I'll likely be in touch with him re. the site.

I'm sure everyone would also agree that you do a great job making 
sense of all the legaleze on an ongoing basis.  You know a lot of 
complicated words.  ;)  Actually, I don't think there's anyone I've 
worked with that has me looking up words on Dictionary.com so often - 
today's new word for me was epistle!  If I get the go ahead on the 
site from Jon I'll be sure to check in with you on quite a few items.

** 
You made a GREAT suggestion to have ICANN inform the RC of new 
registrars so that Cristin can make contact.  What exactly would it 
take to make that happen?
**

As for the mailing list vs forum, I can see both sides on that.  If it 
aint broke don't fix it makes sense, but if we hope to gain new 
members, there's a chance they'd be more familiar and more comfortable 
with a forum format than a mailing list.  Rob and Tom have some good 
solutions so we can have the best of both worlds plus a possible 
exclusive area for paid members.  It'll be interesting to see how that 
pans out.

Thanks for the info on the domains and logo.  At this point I think I 
have everything needed to get started, and if this moves forwards I'll 
be in touch with various members and officers for other details.  

Actually, I do have one more question regarding the site.  I already 
suggested having a list of registrars and which of those are members, 
plus a list of officers, their mugshots, positions and what those 
positions entail.  In the interest of transparency, what are your 
thoughts on also posting a list of mailing list subscriber "names"?

Which reminds me, we also need a page on how to join the mailing list.

~Paul


At 06:10 PM 1/15/2008, you wrote:

>At 02:33 AM 1/13/2008 Sunday  -0500, 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.
>
>Dear Paul:  You have covered a lot of territory in this "epistle".  I am going to answer you in my own behalf rather than as Secretary (except for those matters where I am providing "official" information).  Where I start a response with "IMO", it just that, my opinion.
>
><snip>
>>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.
>
>IMO, the phenomenon of large registrars holding many "shell" accreditations creates a misinterpretation.  I'll expand on this comment as I work through your thoughtful posting.
>
>Again, IMO, it would be nice if some of these registrars with multiple shells would pay dues for some of their other accreditations.  Then we could get by with a lower dues structure for *all* our members.  We are presently accepting newly accredited registrars at lower fees.
>
>>2) A lack of understanding on the policies, methods (such as making a 
>>motion) and acronyms (assuming I'm not the only one!).
>
>You are certainly not the only one.  I may be one of the few who delves into the maze of procedures. When acting as Secretary, I am responsible for fitting our motions and elections into the tight shoe box defined by the  By-Laws and the Rules of Procedure.  Jay was Secretary for the prior fiscal year.  He put a lot of work into our web site.  Here is the URL to the By-Laws:
>
>        http://icannregistrars.org/RC_Bylaws
>
>Then there are the Rules of Procedure:
>
>        http://icannregistrars.org/Registrar_Constituency_Rules_of_Procedure
>
>For the most part, the Rules are consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. They *do* depart from Robert's in the handling of Amendments to Motions.  The present cycle of ballots tests the handling of an "unfriendly amendment".  I'm not sure we are doing it right this time but I accepted the "guidance" of other members of Excom in this case, which I consider a test case.  I don't think it should create a precedent until we ruminate over it a bit.
>
>>3) Registrars not being notified that the RC even exists, what it is, 
>>and what it does.
>
>IMO, ICANN had not risen to what I consider to be its responsibility to inform newly accredited registrars of our existence and to urge them to join the Constituency.  At the very least, they should be providing our Secretary and Administrative Assist with the names and contact points for all new accredited registrars.  We would then be able to add them to the general list (registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).
>
>One of the chores of our Administrative Assistant is to proactively approach non-members and urge them to join the Constituency.
>
>>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.
>
>We have had three web sites prior to the newly launched "forum" site.
>
>The first was set up by Tim Denton, our first Secretary under our present By-Laws.  He is a practicing attorney who was consulting for Tucows at the time. He used Microsoft's Home Page.  I followed him and posted new documents (or links to new documents) during my first year as Secretary.  These documents were mostly referred to me by Bruce Tonkin.  In my second and third terms, our new Chair, Bhavin, proposed a new web site designed and run in India.  Unfortunately, I had no direct access to those developing and managing the site, I had to pass my questions on to Bhavin who passed them to others.  
>
>My limit of three terms ended and Jay became Secretary.  He put a lot of effort into a Wiki type web site.  With the end of his term came proposals from Rob Hall and his colleagues in Oz for a forum type site.  Actually, Jay also recommended a forum site.  It is too early to evaluate the progress of the new site.  Several of us in Excom have made test entries.  I believe the new site deserves our attention and participation. 
>
>My only concern is that the mailing list built into the site may not get enough names on it to replace the registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list.  One person from each dues paying registrar must sign on and get "qualified".  Next, he or she must sign on again to input the email addresses of all of the other employees and consultants who need to receive our postings. IMO, that responsibility should stay with the Secretary or the Administrative Assistant.
>
>>I have benefited 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?
>
>I cannot say.  I just don't know.
>
>>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.
>
>I think your question addresses all those on this mailing list.  I hope others chime in and give their opinions.  A "Motion" is not needed at this time.
>
>>Offhand I think the site should include the following:
>
>Good recommendations follow.  I'll quit here.
>
>I thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and offers of assistance.  You may just find your name on a list of nominees in the not too distant future;>}
>
>Cordially, BobC
>
>Oh, I had to provide addition background.  It starts about five inches down with "Oops". 
>
>
>>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 transferring it over to DomainIt?
>
>*** Oops, I guess you need more information from me.  The sponsor for the domain "icannregistars.org" is presently 
>eNom, but we've been trying for a year to get it moved to Godaddy.  When nothing was happening, I managed to get "icann-registrars.org" transferred to Domains Only to support our Treasurer and Administrative Assistant when invoicing the members.  This domain is also being used as a web site link from the invoices.  The MX setting is used for an email address for our Administrative Assistant and for the Excom and Voting Members Majordomo lists. 
>
>It's all been handled on an of Ad Hoc basis, like the old Navy rule, "Do *something*, even if it's wrong".  There were reefs out there and we were headed right at some of 'em.
>
>>Does the RC currently have a logo?  I've never seen one.
>
>Oops2:  Look at your invoice from our Treasurer.  Excom balloted on several candidate logos offered by Jon's staff.  I abstained from making any selections, history has taught me that it is next to impossible to get a consensus on logos.
>
>
>>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