[registrars] Registrar meetings in Vancouver

[Ross Rader]

I have to say that I agree with Bruce to the extent that we don't have 
solid agenda yet.

Might I suggest that instead of trying to fill up two days, or limit 
ourselves to one, that we immediately draft up a much tighter agenda 
that outlines exactly what topics we need to discuss and how much time 
we need to allocate to each? For instance, I can't imagine what we would 
need to engage the staff over for a period of four hours. Filling in the 
blanks on this agenda will make it much clearer how much time we will 
need during the Vancouver meeting.

Lastly, we should reconsider re-implementing our interstitial meetings. 
I found these very useful in helping the constituency deal proactively 
with administrative and policy matters. By trying to come to conclusion 
on many of these items at the ICANN meeting, we are often left dealing 
with issues reactively.

Marcus Faure wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> I do not think the time we spent in Luxembourg was unproductive, it was merely
> unsuccessful. In the light of the .com events I do not think that it would
> be a good idea to reserve less time for rc meetings, I therefore suggest to
> stay with the two days.
> 
> Yours,
> Marcus
> 
> 
>> Hello All,
>>
>> In the past few ICANN meetings, the registrars constituency has arranged
>> for two full days of meetings.
>>
>> I found at least in Luxembourg that we are not that productive over two
>> days, and I often find that I have other commitments so usually can't
>> attend two full days.
>>
>> At this stage, Thursday 1 Dec 2005 has been allocated for constituency
>> meetings.
>>
>> I have been asked what other day registrars would like allocated to the
>> registrar constituency.
>>
>> In the upcoming meeting in Vancouver there are some substantial
>> workshops on issues such as WSIS, IDNs, DNSSEC, WHOIS etc - where I
>> think registrars need to participate and ensure that our voice is heard
>> by other parts of the ICANN community.  These workshops will be held on
>> Tuesday/Wed/Fri.  I recommend against scheduling a full day of registrar
>> meetings in parallel.
>>
>> I recommend instead the following approach:
>>
>> - using the registrars mailing list for reports/updates on activities
>> where we are not expecting significant interaction  (e.g report on
>> registrars website, budget, etc)
>>
>> - use a registrars teleconference for dealing with issues that are
>> internal to the constituency - e.g administrative matters such as rules
>> of procedure etc
>>
>> - let vendors arrange their own events to present on their new or
>> existing tld
>>
>> - use the physical meeting time in Vancouver to discuss issues where the
>> registrars need to make coherent public statements etc (e.g .com
>> agreement), or where registrars need to seek support from other parts of
>> the ICANN  community (e.g WHOIS) for policy change
>>
>> I note also that many registrars will be getting together for a meeting
>> with Verisign after the ICANN event - so this is also an opportunity for
>> further discussions and interaction amongst registrars.
>>
>> Thus I recommend that we restrict the registrars-only meeting in
>> Vancouver to a single full day - Thursday 1 Dec 2005.
>>
>> Given the importance of the proposed .com agreement, I think it maybe
>> useful for the registrars to pro-actively organise a public workshop
>> (e.g on Tuesday afternoon) to discuss this topic in detail.  I think we
>> need to be well prepared beforehand to have some initial outcomes that
>> the registrars are seeking, and use the workshop to encourage other
>> parts of ICANN (e.g ALAC etc) to participate and support the registrars.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> Member of registrar constituency
>>
>>
>>
>