[registrars] Code of Coduct/Best Practices Debate

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

What this demonstrates is the lack of resources that the constituency has to
achieve its goals. Since LA, Richard, the head of the Code of Conduct/Best
Practices Task Force, has been swamped with a day job (InterQ) and a night
job (Afilias).

What I believe would be productive is to concentrate on restructuring the
constituency and amending the by-laws. Once this is in place we can move
forward to re-addressing this very important issue. Moreover, as a result of
outreach, there have been some more paying members joining. I believe
putting the various positions out for a vote would be the best course of
action.

Mike

P.S Elana please forward the latest Registrar Constituency Restructuring
Memo to the list. I believe the restructuring task force has done its job
and it is now up to the constituency as a whole to comment.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:27 PM
> To: Elana Broitman; Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> Connelly
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
>
>
> I'm saying two things a) we have all this work (best practices) that dove
> into a blackhole after LA (a la Amadeu's warehousing draft) and
> that b) the
> work product of the LA sessions have no buy in because no one has
> seen them.
>
> Leaving LA, I remember a sense that we were moving in the right direction
> with the drafts and that we'd finally arrived at a philsophical direction
> that everyone present could support. This "sense" is vastly different than
> buy-in however. If buy-in exists, I'd love to know what we bought into...
>
> -rwr
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:20 PM
> > To: ross@tucows.com; Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> > Connelly
> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > Verisign
> >
> >
> > I'm simply suggesting that we have a document with buy-in among
> > registrars,
> > which would be a good draft from which to work.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com>
> > To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>; Erica Roberts
> > <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; Amadeu Abril i Abril
> <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
> > Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> - Verisign
> >
> >
> > > This was never ratified by the constituency as a voluntary best
> > practices
> > > document. The last agreement we had as a group on this
> > particular subject
> > > was pursuant to the drafting sessions that we had in LA.
> Post-LA, there
> > were
> > > no further discussions on the subject.
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:03 AM
> > > > To: Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F. Connelly
> > > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > > Verisign
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you will recall, the registrars had agreed to a best practices
> > > > statement,
> > > > which addresses this issue, among others.  It would help further
> > concensus
> > > > building to consider that draft for a starting position.  Please
> > > > let me know
> > > > if you need a copy. Thanks, Elana
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> > > > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; Robert F. Connelly
> > > > <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:32 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > Verisign
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I'm happy to progress this further - and maybe get it
> > included in the
> > NC
> > > > > business plan.
> > > > > Amadeau - Do you still have the text you drafted when you were
> > > > a member of
> > > > > the NC?
> > > > >
> > > > > erica
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
> > > > > To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> > > > - Verisign
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Robert F. Connelly" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 09:52 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >There are no ICANN policies concerning warehousing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, my very last task as NC rep was to start a resolution on
> > > > > > concrete language to implement the anti-warehousing language
> > provided
> > > > > > for in the ICANN Accreditation Agreement... but was
> then "sent" to
> > the
> > > > > > Board and I am afraid that NC never pursued that work.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope something could be done here ;-))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Amadeu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>