Re: [registrars] Code of Coduct/Best Practices Debate

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 
> What this demonstrates is the lack of resources that the constituency has to
> achieve its goals.

Right. What we have is one person (who we have
every reason to believe) saying:

"If you will recall, the registrars had agreed to a best practices
statement, which addresses this issue, among others."

...countered by someone else (who we have every reason
to believe) saying:

"This was never ratified by the constituency as a voluntary best
practices document. The last agreement we had..."

Nobody has disputed the second statement yet so
I guess it must be correct??  

This is dangerous, although it is the accepted
checks and balances with a list. I don't want something to 
go forward, with people thinking it is supported, when 
registrars who don't get to attend these meetings not
having a chance to have their say, or maybe even not know
what is going on.

Software, to keep track of all of
the issues, and status of the issues, would be helpful
given the resources. Ideas?

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com



> Since LA, Richard, the head of the Code of Conduct/Best
> Practices Task Force, has been swamped with a day job (InterQ) and a night
> job (Afilias).
> 
> What I believe would be productive is to concentrate on restructuring the
> constituency and amending the by-laws. Once this is in place we can move
> forward to re-addressing this very important issue. Moreover, as a result of
> outreach, there have been some more paying members joining. I believe
> putting the various positions out for a vote would be the best course of
> action.
> 
> Mike
> 
> P.S Elana please forward the latest Registrar Constituency Restructuring
> Memo to the list. I believe the restructuring task force has done its job
> and it is now up to the constituency as a whole to comment.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:27 PM
> > To: Elana Broitman; Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> > Connelly
> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > Verisign
> >
> >
> > I'm saying two things a) we have all this work (best practices) that dove
> > into a blackhole after LA (a la Amadeu's warehousing draft) and
> > that b) the
> > work product of the LA sessions have no buy in because no one has
> > seen them.
> >
> > Leaving LA, I remember a sense that we were moving in the right direction
> > with the drafts and that we'd finally arrived at a philsophical direction
> > that everyone present could support. This "sense" is vastly different than
> > buy-in however. If buy-in exists, I'd love to know what we bought into...
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:20 PM
> > > To: ross@tucows.com; Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> > > Connelly
> > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm simply suggesting that we have a document with buy-in among
> > > registrars,
> > > which would be a good draft from which to work.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@tucows.com>
> > > To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>; Erica Roberts
> > > <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; Amadeu Abril i Abril
> > <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
> > > Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:55 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> > - Verisign
> > >
> > >
> > > > This was never ratified by the constituency as a voluntary best
> > > practices
> > > > document. The last agreement we had as a group on this
> > > particular subject
> > > > was pursuant to the drafting sessions that we had in LA.
> > Post-LA, there
> > > were
> > > > no further discussions on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > -rwr
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:03 AM
> > > > > To: Erica Roberts; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F. Connelly
> > > > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > > > Verisign
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you will recall, the registrars had agreed to a best practices
> > > > > statement,
> > > > > which addresses this issue, among others.  It would help further
> > > concensus
> > > > > building to consider that draft for a starting position.  Please
> > > > > let me know
> > > > > if you need a copy. Thanks, Elana
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Erica Roberts <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> > > > > To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; Robert F. Connelly
> > > > > <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:32 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> > > Verisign
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I'm happy to progress this further - and maybe get it
> > > included in the
> > > NC
> > > > > > business plan.
> > > > > > Amadeau - Do you still have the text you drafted when you were
> > > > > a member of
> > > > > > the NC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > erica
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
> > > > > > To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:28 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN
> > > > > - Verisign
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Robert F. Connelly" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At 09:52 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >There are no ICANN policies concerning warehousing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, my very last task as NC rep was to start a resolution on
> > > > > > > concrete language to implement the anti-warehousing language
> > > provided
> > > > > > > for in the ICANN Accreditation Agreement... but was
> > then "sent" to
> > > the
> > > > > > > Board and I am afraid that NC never pursued that work.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope something could be done here ;-))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Amadeu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------