RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> This might have been a good idea a while ago, but if ICANN is 
> expecting to 
> make a decision in September, I would think that giving input 
> so late in 
> the game might not have any impact.  I think the meeting is 
> better spent 
> talking with the new registry operator for ORG, whoever that is.

Ahh...good point - I've seriously miscalc'ed the scheds...nevermind ;)



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jim Archer
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:42 PM
> To: tim@godaddy.com; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Michael D. 
> Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question
> 
> 
> This might have been a good idea a while ago, but if ICANN is 
> expecting to 
> make a decision in September, I would think that giving input 
> so late in 
> the game might not have any impact.  I think the meeting is 
> better spent 
> talking with the new registry operator for ORG, whoever that is.
> 
> A US meeting in October might still be a good idea.  How many 
> registrars 
> are planning to go to the ICANN meeting in Shanghi?
> 
> Jim
> 
> --On Friday, July 26, 2002 11:21 AM -0500 Tim Ruiz 
> <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
> > I agree with this idea as well.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:21 AM
> > To: 'Rob Hall'; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question
> >
> >
> >> Why not invite all the applicants to come speak to us.  If 
> they want 
> >> to show up, they can.
> >>
> >> But even if they don't, we can still have a debate on what 
> we want to 
> >> see, and then issue a communiqué on what we want, as opposed to be 
> >> reactive to what the winner decides.
> >
> > I strongly advocate that we proceed with this idea. If one 
> remembers 
> > back to the new gTLD creation process, the IP constituency issued a 
> > similar communique that was very well received by both the 
> applicants 
> > and the board. If we are to make our opinion matter, now is 
> the time 
> > to act. All too often our constituency shows up at the 
> ICANN meetings 
> > without a decided position going in. Using these face to 
> face meetings 
> > effectively will mean that we can go into the ICANN meeting and use 
> > our time lobbying our position(s) instead of deciding them.
> >
> > It would make sense at this point to strike a working group 
> to come up 
> > with a draft communique that we can discuss and refine at the 
> > September meeting. This will ensure that we have a strong 
> focal point 
> > upon which we can base our efforts. Designing a draft communique in 
> > the meeting will be painful (as we have seen in the past).
> >
> > It would make sense that this WG table their document for 
> review with 
> > the constituency 14 days prior to the meeting in order that the 
> > membership can digest it and prepare for the discussion 
> ahead of time.
> >
> > I would also recommend that this working group consist of three or 
> > four people that have an awareness of the basic issues, have no 
> > material involvement with any of the bids and include at least one 
> > member of the ExCom on an oversight basis.
> >
> > Of course, I would be pleased to assist with this effort.
> >
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: 
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Rob.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> >> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> >> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:44 AM
> >> To: registrars@dnso.org
> >> Subject: [registrars] The .ORG Question
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello All:
> >>
> >> As Rick mentioned to the Registrar list yesterday evening,
> >> ICANN has announced that the decision on .ORG is not likely
> >> to be announced until the end of September. One of the
> >> principle reasons that this meeting was being convened was to
> >> provide the new registry operator the unique opportunity to
> >> met in person with those registrars that control well 90% of
> >> the .org market share to discuss technical and legal issues
> >> (i.e. contracts, bonds, etc.) . The Executive Committee
> >> viewed this as critical in guaranteeing a smooth seamless
> >> transition between registry operators. Particularly in light
> >> of the fact that some potential bidders have no existing
> >> relationship with ICANN accredited registrars.
> >>
> >> The Registrar meeting is tentatively scheduled for the
> >> weekend of September 21-22. Although a decision on .org is
> >> possible by then, there is no guarantee from ICANN that this
> >> will happen. Pushing the meeting back one week is complicated
> >> by the fact that Afilias is having a shareholder meeting and
> >> a number of registrars will be attending that meeting in
> >> Dublin. Therefore in order to maximize registrar
> >> participation, the meeting would have to be pushed back till
> >> October 5-6. This date is only three weeks before the
> >> Shanghai meeting.
> >>
> >> Therefore as the Executive Committee begins its search to
> >> find a suitable meeting location (accessible to major airport
> >> hub and reasonable hotel accommodations), we need to have
> >> feedback ASAP as to whether to shift the date to guarantee
> >> that the .org winner will be able to address the constituency
> >> and enhance the likelihood of a smooth seamless transition.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>