[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [registrars] NC representatives

Ivan Pope wrote:
> Here we go. So, we have the two main CORE activists 'representing' us on the
> Names Council. We 'elected' them for an interim period. CORE benefits from
> the endless extension of the 'Testbed'.

Cam down, Ivan. I don't represnet CORE within the NC, but the Registrars
consituency. I don't represnet CORE within the Registrars consituency, but
Nominalia. And Nominalia is, as NetNames, an ICANN accredited registrr wanting
to driectly register domain names.

I think that it is in the public record that, form berlin on, I have been
advoacting agaisnt any futher extension of the testbed period. On mettigns,
telconferences and mailinglists.

> Personally, I have had no 'representation' or feedback from Ken or Amadeu. I
> have no idea what is going on in the NC. There has been no discussion of
> Registrar Constituency business.

Right, and this is our collective fualt. Please bear in mind that we do
repreesnet registrars' interest within the NC. We are NOT supposed to manage
the registrars consituency. We have been reporting NC activites, asking your
copperation in the WGs works and actively working there.

For one thing, I was a bit frustrated that only Ken and I apllied to the WG A.
that obnly Michael plage applied for wg n and that only a handfull of
registrars /you, Paul, ken, Miahcel and myself, if i am not mistaken) have
applied for WGC. And, to say the least, not all of them/ua are so actively participating...

As co-chair of the WG A (so appointed because i was the only registrar
pariticpating at theat time...) I have hust been ble to complete the Final
report and send it to ICANN BoD within the absolutaly crazy short schedula we
had. So, yes, I have been a bit absent form this list. But I have always
ansred all the quetions i got. Do you want a weeekly report? Well we have all
the minutes published... And perhaps form now on, when I will not chair
anything else, I could take that respinsivbility on.

C'om on Ivan, less tears and more work!!!

> You argument that the interim election was based on the 'assumption that
> there would be many new Registrars' is not accurate. How can it be. The
> Registrar constituency comprises all pre-accredited Registrars, so the pool
> is as big as it is going to be in the near future.

Sure, but it now much larger than it was when we met in Berlion. For one
thing, many accredited registrars have jhoined. And ICANN ahas accredited some
other registrars (15, I hint). The assumption as that "after the testbed
period expire" many more registrars would join. This is not yet the case, so
the only thing you and me can do is argue about guesses.

> I think it would be wrong to allow the Registrar constituency to go forward
> with these two representatives unchallenged.

Ok, go ahead and challenge whatever you want. Nut based on my work as NC
member, please. Not on your personal problems with CORE.

> Are we a Registrar constituency or are we a CORE constituency?

Do you "realy" want an answer, Ivan? 

> I call for elections before the end of the 90 day period. More than that,
> lets have an actual discussion of what we are doing and what we want from
> the process.

No need or that. Icann has just asked the NC to discuss a schedule allowing
elections of a new NC in time to also appoint the three DNSO Directors prior
to the November Los Angeles meeting. And as you see form Rchard's mail, the
current pNC reps ae the ones strating this discussion. No need for heros, yet.

> Further, I will stand for election in order to allow full and open
> discussion.

These are good news. We all know that you have the right kwnoledge and
experience, and enough cgodd sense, not to need recourse to the sort of cheap
disqualifications you were trying in this mail.

Best regards form a friend who has learned to disagree with you very seldom on
substanivbe issues and rahter ofetn on procedures ;-))