[registrars] FW: Registrar Failover Working Group Invitation

[dwascher at iaregistry.com]

A lot of this was discussed at the last ICANN meeting held in CA on the top
floor of the hotel. We had most registrars there discussing the data layout
and other operational aspects that needed consideration. The implementation
of this also took us down the path of using this data in such a way that if
a registrar went out of business or how a different registrars could import
this data in a disaster recover method.

At that time ICANN had an action item of giving us a list of escrow
companies that we would evaluate and what types of fees would be charged.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:46 AM
> To: Ross Rader
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; registrars at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Registrar Failover Working Group
> Invitation
>
>
> As far as I can recollect from my memory this was mainly drafted by
> Louis Touton. I have no idea who else might have been working on it
> (maybe Ken Stubbs). However it might have been I would like to join
> in.
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> Am 18.03.2006 schrieb Ross Rader:
> > Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > >>This is purely a registrar matter
> > >
> > >Agree. Wasn't the original group he refers to just Registrars? Or did
> > >another group convene after this one:
> > >http://www.icann.org/escrow/registrar-escrow-08nov01.htm
> >
> > Unknown. ICANN's interpretation of transparency doesn't include
> > publishing reports that always include the names of the parties to the
> > deliberation or consistently updating historical documents to refer to
> > any further developments that may have happened. The website documents
> > are unclear at best. Perhaps Mike Zupke could clarify this for us. As
> > you may have noticed from my tone, I'm not inclined to leave much as a
> > matter of faith when it comes to ICANNs actions as I have in the past.
> > Each time that we do, a slightly different interpretation gets
> > implemented and we're left wondering why we didn't ask more
> > questions...(Sorry folks, but fool me once...)
> >
> > >In any event, we need to weigh in on this, although the timing seems a
> > >bit retaliatory. Or maybe it's an attempt at distraction?
> >
> > Agree - on all three points :)
> >