[registrars] Discussion stage for motion to hold September RC meeting in advance of ICANN Carthage meeting.

[Paul Westley]

Hi guys,

I endorse putting this issue to a ballot.

Kind regards,

Paul Westley


At 18:06 13/07/03, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>Dear Registrars:  I have been directed to initiate the 14 day discussion 
>on this issue:
>
>LA MEETING
>
>Explanation:  The next official ICANN meeting is planned for Carthage, 
>Tunisia during October 27-31, 2003.  While we would encourage everyone to 
>attend the meeting, we have heard from many registrars that they are 
>unlikely to attend.  In fact, we would be interested to know who is 
>planning to attend that meeting.
>
>In order to support registrar participation and foster dynamic discussion 
>of issues, there is a motion to hold an interim informal meeting.  We are 
>coordinating with the registry constituency to schedule a mutually 
>agreeable meeting time and place to allow for part of the agenda to be a 
>concurrent registrar-registry meeting.
>
>The venue proposed and most discussed during the Montreal meeting was 
>Marina del Rey
>for several reasons.
>         One, we would be able to meet with ICANN staff, who had not 
> travelled to the Washington, D.C. meeting.
>         Two, we would accommodate registrars for whom Tunisia is 
> geographically more challenging ­ for example, Asian and West Coast N. 
> American registrars.
>         Three, the registries have agreed to meet concurrently with us, 
> and are planning for a U.S. location.  It should be noted, however, that 
> the unsponsored TLD registries, such as com/net/org/biz/info/pro, could 
> come to Marina del Rey, but the sponsored ones (museum, aero, coop) would 
> prefer the East Coast and may not make it to the West Coast.
>
>The proposed dates are Friday, September 12, or 19, in order to allow 
>registrars to get cheaper flights as they could stay during the 
>weekend.  If anyone has a strong preference, please express it on the 
>list, so the Ex.Com. can take it into account in making plans.
>
>No decisions would be made at this interim meeting, so anyone unable to 
>make it should not feel disadvantaged. Moreover, we will endeavor to set 
>up telecommunication links.  The initial proposed agenda (in no particular 
>order) would include the topics below.  The meeting would be conducted in 
>interactive workshop-style sessions where appropriate, with guest expert 
>speakers invited for many of the topics.  Finally, a part of the day would 
>be devoted to a joint meeting with the registry constituency to discuss 
>the topics below or others of mutual interest.  It would be highly 
>valuable for us to meet with the registries as the two provider groups 
>need to coordinate our policies and activities.  So we would encourage you 
>to allow the ExCom to remain flexible about the date and time of the meeting.
>
>
>PROPOSED AGENDA
>
>*       Meeting with ICANN staff ­ Paul Twomey, Dan Halloran, Ellen Sondheim;
>*       Transfers ­ update on implementation of new policy;
>*       Whois ­ update on work of the privacy steering group;
>*       New TLDs ­ update on ICANN process for choosing new TLDs and
>         for reviewing those chosen in 2000;
>*       Fraudulent credit card charge backs ­ risk sharing with the 
>registries;
>*       WLS ­ update on service;
>*       IDN ­ update on service;
>*       EPP ­ update on transition to EPP by the registries;
>*       ISP compatibility (a registry proposed topic)
>*       Providers (registrars/registries) position regarding the new ICANN;
>*       Registrar Constituency budget ­ review and discussion.
>
>We would encourage additional thoughts on the agenda, as soon as possible.
>
>The specific motions are:
>
>BALLOT ISSUE ONE
>
>Endorse a registrar constituency meeting in September:
>a)      Yes
>b)      No
>c)      Don't care
>
>Pursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion received 5 
>endorsements at the Montreal meeting.  It will be put to a vote under the 
>current voting procedures after a 14-day discussion period.  During this 
>discussion, amendments may be offered.  Friendly amendments will be 
>accepted and such changes made to the ballot.  Unfriendly amendments will 
>receive a separate ballot process, including the requirement for endorsements.
>
>BALLOT ISSUE TWO
>
>Express a preference for place:
>a)      West Coast of N. America
>b)      East Coast of N. America
>c)      Europe
>d)      Flexible
>
>
>The final ballots will be crafted to reflect these choices
>
>Pursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion needs 5 
>endorsements.  It will be put to a vote under the current voting 
>procedures after a 14-day discussion period.  During this discussion, 
>amendments may be offered.  Friendly amendments will be accepted and such 
>changes made to the ballot.  Unfriendly amendments will receive a separate 
>ballot process, including the requirement for endorsements.
>
>end quote:
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>BobC, Secretary of RC.