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

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

Yes the constituency by-laws as adopted in Berlin, Germany in the Spring of
1999 (my how time flies) can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/registrars/Registrars.Articles.html

There have been some agreed upon amended provisions that were voted upon and
approved, but which I never was able to amend into this original document.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: michael@palage.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Code of Coduct/Best Practices Debate
>
>
> I couldn't agree more Mike...
>
> You mention "restructuring" and "amending" (and what follows
> isn't me being
> coy, but ignorant) various constituency instruments - do these actually
> exist today to amend and restructure? We have limped along reasonably well
> with what I thought was a very informal, volunteer based organis(m)ation.
> I'd love to see what the founding documents are (as would others
> I presume)
> for this constituency if in fact they exist...
>
> While we're on the subject, are there any other initiatives that we've
> forgotten about? Last call for past-initiatives...;)
>
> -rwr
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:03 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Code of Coduct/Best Practices Debate
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > What this demonstrates is the lack of resources that the
> > constituency has to
> > achieve its goals. 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>