RE: [registrars] Code of Conduct/Best Practices Debate

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

As I pointed out in the meeting in Melbourne, the lack of resources will
hamper the registrars constituency from having a serious impact on the ICANN
processes.

The constituency needs to consider funding some sort of secretariat - even
if only part-time, to ensure we get closure on issues such as best
practices, WHOIS etc.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chief Technology Officer
Melbourne IT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:03 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Code of Coduct/Best Practices Debate
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>