RE: [registrars] Registrars code of conduct

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

Yes, I think that was my slot, which will now become part of the 90 minute Slot II.

If V is used for the Code discussion, I would refer you to http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/mail4.html#00222 - the November 27, 2000 emails from Richard Lindsay, who chaired our group developing the document.  The final document is in these archives - it became a best practices document to indicate its voluntary nature.  We could as a start go through this document, as well as analogies like the one that Bruce Tonking suggested.

As today, at that time, many registrars were wary of additional binding restrictions.  Registrars had in mind different standards.  Ultimately, I recall that we were able to agree on any minimum consumer safeguards by keeping the document voluntary.

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Westley [mailto:paul@internetters.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:44 AM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: Elana Broitman; Tim Ruiz; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au;
Registrars@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; Michael D. Palage
Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrars code of conduct


I believe Rick left a 30 minute session free in the draft agenda for Monday 
- 1330 Slot V ( 30 minutes ). Could we have a preliminary discussion then 
drawing on the original agreed Code of Conduct - or should we allocate a 
longer time period for it? Draft agenda pasted below for reference.

Paul

>     0800  Room opens
>     0830  Introduction of new Executive Committee (mike)
>     0845  Annual review, financial etc.
>
>     0900  Slot I   ( 60 min )  Anti-trust guidelines 
> (bcute@networksolutions.com)
>     1000  Slot II  ( 90 minutes ) Whois ( ross@tucows.com )
>
>     1145  Lunch  ( 1 hour 15 min )
>
>     1300  Slot IV  ( 30 min ) Paul Twome ICANN structure and budget
>     1330  Slot V ( 30 minutes )
>
>     1400  Slot VI ( 60 min ) Registry Presentations
>
>     1530  review, delegations, work items, close
>     1600  exit, room needs to be reconfigured.


At 15:05 16/06/03, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>On 6/16/2003 9:58 AM Elana Broitman noted that:
>
>>That draft was adopted and stands as the voluntary code.  I'll dig the 
>>archives for the vote count
>
>If it was, then I stand corrected.
>
>>Why start from scracth when over a year was spent on this.
>
>The point is not to start from scratch, the point is to adopt a document 
>per 3.7.1 in order that it as some teeth. Volutary CoC's are just that - 
>voluntary and not worth a lot except for PR purposes.
>
>--
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
>"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot."
>- Steven Wright
>
>Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>
>