<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period on the proposed Verisign agreement</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Bruce: Network Solutions, NameSecure, and SRSPlus definitely will sign as well. Thanks. Jon<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ross Rader [<A HREF="mailto:ross@tucows.com">mailto:ross@tucows.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu Oct 27 23:18:55 2005<BR>
To: Bruce Tonkin<BR>
Cc: registrars@dnso.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period on the proposed Verisign agreement<BR>
<BR>
Given that it has taken me the last three days just to get a hard-copy<BR>
bound up so that I can read it, coupled with the fact that most<BR>
registrars were only afforded an overview of this document today, the 24<BR>
days seems extremely inadequate. Accommodating this request would be a<BR>
small, but valued affirmation that ICANN the Entity is still willing to<BR>
consider and act upon the input of ICANN the Community.<BR>
<BR>
Please include Tucows Inc. as a signatory to this request.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Tonkin wrote:<BR>
> Hello All,<BR>
><BR>
> ICANN has opened at 24 day comment period, which I assume starts on 24<BR>
> October 2005, and finishes on Friday 18 Nov 2005.<BR>
><BR>
> I note from the ICANN bylaws - Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2:<BR>
><BR>
> "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy<BR>
> development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for<BR>
> discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 6(1)(b) of<BR>
> this Article, prior to any final Board action."<BR>
><BR>
> (see: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III">http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III</A>)<BR>
><BR>
> Now I realize we can argue whether this is a policy issue or not, but I<BR>
> think the spirit of the bylaws is that a major decision like this should<BR>
> allow for an in-person meeting.<BR>
><BR>
> I also note that Verisign and ICANN have been discussing this for about<BR>
> a year.<BR>
><BR>
> I think it is reasonable that registrars and other members of the GNSO<BR>
> community have the opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement in an<BR>
> "in-person public Forum"., The most practical time to do this would be<BR>
> the upcoming ICANN meeting from the 30 Nov to 4 Dec 05.<BR>
><BR>
> I therefore propose to send the following statement to the ICANN Board.<BR>
> I would like registrars to sign-up to this statement as individual<BR>
> registrars (not enough time to run the formal registrars constituency<BR>
> voting process). The more people that sign-on to this, the more weight<BR>
> the statement will hold.<BR>
><BR>
> Please advise via the mailing list, or via email to me if you would like<BR>
> to be added as a signatory.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> STATEMENT:<BR>
><BR>
> "We the undersigned registrars, request that the public comment period<BR>
> on the proposed agreement with Verisign be extended until Sunday 4 Dec<BR>
> 2005 so as to allow opportunities for in-person public discussions<BR>
> during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Vancouver. This we believe is<BR>
> consistent with the spirit of Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2 of the<BR>
> ICANN bylaws, which states that:<BR>
> "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy<BR>
> development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for<BR>
> discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 6(1)(b) of<BR>
> this Article, prior to any final Board action."<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Regards,<BR>
> Bruce Tonkin<BR>
> Melbourne IT<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>