[registrars] "Focused" Registrar work shops
It appears to me that we have the start of a good dialogue on developing an
approach for better updating & educating constituency members as well as
dealing with issues which are universally relevant to Registrars.
I am really pleased that others see the need for making the time we commit
to these registrar meetings as productive as possible.
If this be the case, then it follow that we might considering starting to
develop an stratified list of workshop topics for the upcoming year (based
on registrar member input) . If we plan these workshops properly it might
also allow us the opportunity to consider inviting in outside speakers (when
we find the need for same) .
here is a "small" starter list
1. data protection & privacy issues as they relate to registrar operations
a. (I.e. customer service & minimizing liability)
b.. technical & operation impacts
2. Internationalized domains
a. technical considerations
3. Whois issues and their impact
a. current trends
b. can we develop a uniform constituency position on this issue
c. potential impacts on registrars "thick vs thin" registry approach
d. protecting our customers from future "whois" abuses
I am anxious to hears other members thoughts on this topic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick H Wesson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: "'Ken Stubbs'" <email@example.com>; <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Dot ".org" re-delegation and its impact on Reg
> I agree that we might be able to use some of the long established
> practices of the IETF but often the roles of the Area Director (AD) and
> IESG are over looked.
> not just anyone can create a working group, you must have the support of
> an AD and the IESG has oversite on documents and if and when they get to
> the RFC Editor.
> If we want to look to the IETF as a model lets not overlook many of the
> higher functions that keep the IETF working groups focused. I am NOT
> suggesting that we create parallel mechanisms to the AD, IESG or IAB roles
> but that similar mechanisms are also needed.
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > Hello Ken,
> > I agree with your general idea of focussed working groups to consider
> > various issues. It is in fact how the Internet Engineering Task Force
> > (IETF) works. Much of the procedures for IETF can also be useful here.
> > example a format for establishing a working group should also define its
> > "charter" - ie what does it expect to achieve and what is the timetable.
> > Working groups should formally report to the registrars constituency,
> > the Executive can help coordinate the activities of the different
> > The Registrars Website is an ideal mechanism for keeping track of the
> > issues.
> > If we identify key issues such as Registrar constituency by-laws, DNSO
> > re-structure, ".org" changes, transfers, deletes etc - we can allocate
> > for focussed meetings on those topics to coincide with general meetings
> > the Registrars Constituency.
> > Some of these meetings can run in parallel to save time.
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:52 AM
> > To: Registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Dot ".org" re-delegation and its impact on
> > fellow registrars
> > I have forwarded you in the past policy documents from the dot-org task
> > force i have been involved in and as this process starts to move forward
> > is imperative that we registrars more deeply consider the impact on our
> > operations and business plans that a re-delegation or the ".org" tld may
> > have.
> > i am proposing to the group that we establish a "workforce" to evaluate
> > impact on our group from this re-delegation. we also need to start to
> > develop guidelines to assist the ICANN staff in developing RFP's which
> > into consideration the impact on registrars and place no undue financial
> > burdens on us a a group.
> > as a preliminary suggestion, we need to evaluate and make specific
> > recommendations (if we can arrive at a concensus) on
> > the impacts of transition to "thick" vs staying with "thin" models
> > timing of the transition
> > protection of the registrars for any liability arising out of policy
> > or change to "thick" vs current registry models. (this is where data
> > protection & privacy liabilities may come into place)
> > cost of changes in protocols should they be modified in re-delegation
> > protection against imposition of any new fees for registrars affiliating
> > with the new registry manager for ".org"
> > needless to say there are many other issues which need to be "vetted"
> > is important for us to get organized here and be in a position to
> > input into this RFP process as it develops rather than sitting by the
> > wayside and letting it be "imposed on us"..
> > this is a job which will require input from numerous parties but the
> > on us all is significant PLUS it sets a good precedence for us to insure
> > that our voice is heard in the future when expansion is contemplated and
> > future RFP's issued.
> > i look forward to your reactions on this issue
> > best wishes
> > ken stubbs