RE: [registrars] Washington Meeting - Draft Agenda

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

> I regret that there is no progress on the XFER issue

Mike - 

To be clear, no progress from a task force perspective does not mean no
progress on the issue. The Names Council is moving forward, The
Implementation Committee is moving forward, but, it would be
inappropriate for me to speak on behalf either of these two groups. I
can only speak from a task force perspective and this portion of the
machine is currently waiting for those other two portions to complete
their work.

> But I believe that the opportunity for registrars to 
> voice their concerns to the registries about the XFER
> issue should not be squandered. I believe that a 
> open discussion on the potentual use of the Auth Codes 
> with the EPP registries could be of particular value.

To your point about the use of the time, I would not be opposed to
discussions of the nature that you describe, but I would want to
understand what the goals of such a discussion would be per Elana's
recommendation. All too often we spend a lot of time "discussing" things
at these meetings and spend no time "deciding" things. Transfers has
received more than its fair share of discussion over the last two years
and not near enough decision. Any discussion of value around these
issues would have to be, in my books, a decision oriented conversation.
If this is what we are going to undertake, I would further suggest that
we move the slot to the morning in order that we can candidly discuss
the views of the membership without interference from the Registry
Operators. Only once we have arrived at a consensus position on the
points that you describe would it be appropriate to have a wider ranging
discussion. This, I suppose, applies to all of the items on the agenda
and not just transfers.

Lastly, when do you expect to be closing off discussion on this draft
and publishing a final agenda?

Thanks again,



                       -rwr




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

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Washington Meeting - Draft Agenda 
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I regret that there is no progress on the XFER issue to 
> report, as this is an important, and long over due, issue for 
> all registrars. I do not mind reallocating a portion of the 
> XFER issue to by-law discussions. But I believe that the 
> opportunity for registrars to voice their concerns to the 
> registries about the XFER issue should not be squandered. I 
> believe that a open discussion on the potentual use of the 
> Auth Codes with the EPP registries could be of particular value.
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:10 PM
> > To: 'Elana Broitman'; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Washington Meeting - Draft Agenda
> >
> >
> > > Mike - thanks for planning a comprehensive agenda.  In an 
> effort to 
> > > maximize the productiveness of this meeting (and go beyond just 
> > > discussion), I'd suggest that we ask for registrars who 
> will attend 
> > > to volunteer to champion each of the agenda items.  (I 
> would expect 
> > > that for each, there's someone who's been most active on 
> the list).  
> > > This person should send out goals, action items to be decided, or
> > > questions to be answered for his or her designated topic.
> > > That way, we will try to end the meeting with decisions 
> and actions.
> >
> > I fully support this approach. Its very important to me from a 
> > planning and resource allocation perspective that we go into these 
> > meetings with a very clear idea of what we as an 
> organization can hope 
> > to achieve.
> >
> > Further to this, I would like to donate the hour allocated to 
> > transfers and apply it to the By-laws and Structure portion of the 
> > agenda. First off, I have no news from a task force 
> perspective. I can 
> > provide slightly more detail in a separate email, but 
> suffice to say, 
> > we waiting for the Names Council to approve our 
> recommendations before 
> > we proceed with next steps. Secondly, there are a number of 
> sub-topics 
> > that have all been lumped together under the canopy of "bylaws". I 
> > would like to see more time devoted to the discussion of 
> each of these 
> > sub-issues as the conclusions we draw will define our 
> constituency at 
> > a very fundamental level.
> >
> > Thanks for getting the ball rolling with the draft agenda 
> Mike. This 
> > is a great starting point.
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] 
> > > On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> > > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:36 PM
> > > To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Washington Meeting - Draft Agenda
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike - thanks for planning a comprehensive agenda.  In an 
> effort to 
> > > maximize the productiveness of this meeting (and go beyond just 
> > > discussion), I'd suggest that we ask for registrars who 
> will attend 
> > > to volunteer to champion each of the agenda items.  (I 
> would expect 
> > > that for each, there's someone who's been most active on 
> the list).  
> > > This person should send out goals, action items to be decided, or
> > > questions to be answered for his or her designated topic.
> > > That way, we will try to end the meeting with decisions 
> and actions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Elana
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:36 AM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [registrars] Washington Meeting - Draft Agenda
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > >
> > > Listed below is the draft agenda of the 
> Registrar/Registry meeting 
> > > scheduled for next Friday February 21st in Washington, DC. I have 
> > > compiled this agenda based upon various inputs from 
> registrars over 
> > > the past couple of weeks. If there are any other 
> suggestions please 
> > > bring them to my attention. Any issues that can not be addressed 
> > > during this meeting will be followed up during the Rio meeting 
> > > scheduled for March.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > 8:15 - 8:30 (closed session Registrars only) State of the 
> > > Constituency
> > >
> > > This will be a brief introduction of registrars in 
> attendance along 
> > > with a roll-call of currently paid members with full 
> voting rights.
> > >
> > >
> > > 8:30 - 9:30 (closed session Registrars only) By-law Discussion
> > >
> > > There will be a discussion of the new Registrar 
> Constituency by-laws 
> > > that must be submitted and approved by ICANN. In light of 
> the ICANN 
> > > reform which no longer requires the constituency to pay for its 
> > > Names Council representatives, the constituency is at a 
> cross roads 
> > > for where it would like to go. Currently we have in excess of 
> > > $20,000 on account with only $10,000 of expensed committed so far 
> > > ($2,500 DC meeting, $5,000 ICANN fees (last payment), and $2,500 
> > > registrar software). To date the registrar constituency has 
> > > collected no dues for 2003.
> > >
> > > Moving forward the registrar constituency needs to decide 
> whether it 
> > > would like to continue to operate in a low cost environment or 
> > > whether it would like to become more like a professional trade 
> > > association. In the past I have personally opposed retaining paid 
> > > staff, incorporating, etc. However, there have been several 
> > > registrars that have raised these possibilities with me 
> again and I 
> > > think it would be beneficial to discuss the merits of 
> these options.
> > >
> > > Also for discussion during this session will be the 
> proposal made by 
> > > Ross in connection with membership participation and Tom in 
> > > connection with a policy framework for raising and 
> advancing policy 
> > > issues within the constituency.
> > >
> > > 9:30 - 9:55 Consideration for Registration Authorities Conducting 
> > > Business in the European Union (open registrars/registry)
> > >
> > > I attended a workshop in Berlin, Germany last week and 
> there were a 
> > > number of panels dealing with issues that directly impact all 
> > > registrars conducting business within the European Union. 
> I will try 
> > > to provide a brief summary of these laws and how they potentially 
> > > impact your business if you transact business with individuals 
> > > and/or businesses in the EU.
> > >
> > > - Effective July 1, 2003 non-EU registrars must start 
> charging Value 
> > > Added Tax (VAT) to all transactions with consumers in the EU. 
> > > Current EU VAT rates range from 13% to 25%. In addition 
> registrars 
> > > must register with a tax authortity in one of the EU 
> member states.
> > > - EU Directive 95/46/EC: deals with data privacy laws that
> > > are currently in effect.
> > > - EU Directive 02/58/EC; This directive goes into effect
> > > October 2003 and provides additional e-commerce regulation
> > > including among other things the use of "cookies" on websites;
> > >
> > >
> > > 9:55 - 10:15 Review and Summary of FTC Workshop on Cross Border 
> > > Fraud (open
> > > registrars/registry)
> > >
> > > This will provide a brief summary of the two day work 
> shop on cross 
> > > border fraud. A number of registrars have stated that 
> they will not 
> > > be able to attend the workshop. The key focus will be on 
> credit card 
> > > and whois issues.
> > >
> > >
> > > 10:15 - 11:00 Credit Card Charge Backs (open registrar/registry)
> > >
> > > This will be a discussion among the participants to discuss the 
> > > impact of credit card fraud within the domain name registration 
> > > industry and what if any steps can be taken among registration 
> > > authorities (registrars and
> > > registries) to mitigate this problem.
> > >
> > > 11:00 - 12:00 Update on the Whois Task Force
> > >
> > > This will be an update on the ICANN Whois Task Force 
> final report, 
> > > and how it potentially impacts registrars. Bruce Tonkin's 
> proposal 
> > > will also be discussed at this time and how it should be 
> > > incorporated into any implementation policy. I have also 
> learned a 
> > > rumor that Senator Burn's is considering introducing a Spam bill 
> > > that will have a provision providing third parties a 
> cause of action 
> > > against people that provide false or inaccurate whois 
> information. I 
> > > am trying to obtain a mark-up of this draft legislation since it 
> > > could potentially impacts all registrations authorities.
> > >
> > > 12:30 - 1:30 Catered Lunch (Registrars and Registries)
> > >
> > >
> > > 1:30- 2:30 Transfers
> > >
> > > Ross will provide the latest update on the transfer 
> implementation 
> > > work.
> > >
> > > 2:30 - 3:00 Auto Delete
> > >
> > > Tim Ruiz will provide an update on the auto-delete task 
> force, and 
> > > we will collectively try to identify any potential bugs 
> to prevent 
> > > the RGP billing bug from reoccurring.
> > >
> > > 3:00 - 3:30 Redemption Grace Period
> > >
> > > Registrars and registries will try to discuss the problems 
> > > encountered by registrars with the RGP, and see if there is a 
> > > mutually acceptable framework for modifying the current 
> policy and 
> > > reinstating the 5 day non-billable grace period.
> > >
> > > 3:30 - 4:00 IDN Primer
> > >
> > > Andrew McLaughlin gave an excellent non-technical primer 
> on IDNs to 
> > > illustrate the potential complex policy issues 
> surrounding IDNs. I 
> > > am trying to obtain a copy of these slides to use in during this 
> > > time slot.
> > >
> > > 4:00 - 5:30 Registry Presentations
> > >
> > > A number of registries that are co-sponsoring this event have 
> > > various technical updates that they want to provide to 
> registrars, 
> > > i.e. RegistryPro is preparing for launch, PIR will be 
> switching over 
> > > to a thick EPP 7.0 version; NeuStar has some updates on 
> .CN and .US; 
> > > VeriSign has some new market research that it would like to share.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To date I have had approximately 20 registrar 
> participants confirm 
> > > there participation and approximately 10 registry 
> participants. The 
> > > hotel has extended the time period to receive the discount room 
> > > rate. I would encourage all to take advantage of this 
> rate which is 
> > > around $100 a night cheaper than other hotels.
> > >
> > > Any questions let me know.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>