RE: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam

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

Tom:

One important question that needs to be added to your list, is the issue in
fact policy in accordance with our contracts. Unfortunately, too many people
try to put "square" contractual issues in the policy "circles". One of the
things you will find in the ERC is a check-off by ICANN prior to an issue
moving forward as policy within the GNSO, although there is currently a veto
feature being discussed to override ICANN's recommendation. I believe it
would save everyone alot of time and effort to make sure what was and was
not policy before investiment the time and resources pursuing a potential
dead-end.

Mike

P.S. I thought all of your other issues were excellent recommendations, and
should be incorporated into our by-law revision discussion.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:23 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam



Hello,

due to the fact that I cannot participate on todays call I would
like to put forth some questions for further discussion in Amsterdam.

All of this questions are related to the RCs bylaws and the process of
policy-development. Knowing that there are a lot of interessting topics
in the pipe right now and a lot of issues that we should deal with to
assure a a safe future (i.e. funding, .org) I still would like to discuss
this questions. In my believes a well defined and good working process is
essential for an effectiv and efficient policy-development. This issue
has been picked up by varios members on various occasion and a lot
of discussion how a process could look like has taken place. Thought
of all the work that has been done on this subject (see all the mails
from Mike, Ross, Bruce Tonkin, Rob Hall ... the list would be endless) it
is a pity that no final process has been achieved.

Please note that I have not answered the questions myself. I didn't,
having in mind, that it might be a good idea that if this should become
a topic in Amsterdam people could forward complete positioning papers
regarding
these or related question to the list. Comparing and evaluating well tought
papers might be more efficient as discussing only one proposal.

As a final remark I want to mention that I used the word voting on
purpose because I don't believe that consensus can be achieved in an
enviroment of competition. This might be against the ICANN spirit but
I just can't help myself on this point ;)

Questions:

Process:
- how can an issue be elevated to a topic of general interest ?
- how long can a topic be discussed before a decision has to be found ?
- how long shall a decision be valid ?

Voting rules:
- what participation must be reached for a quorum ?
- what majority must be reached to finalize a decision ?

RC Discussion:
- can there be straw polls to direct the course of discussion ?

Representation of the RC within ICANN
- are the NC reps obliged to reflect all positions of the RC
  and if yes how will this be achieved ?
- are RC members working in ICANN working groups bound to
  "decisions" prior made from the RC ?

Best

tom

-

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel.
+49-721-91374-534
76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax
+49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                                    tom@schlund.de