RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign

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

I don't recall that this was going to be put forward on that basis. To the
contrary, I explicitly remember a constituency vote that called for the
document to be put forward as a voluntary best practices statement, not
binding policy adopted through the NC route. Maybe I'm reading your message
wrong as it is conceivably possible to put forward a resolution that would
state the the document is a voluntary statement of practice...

Clarification anyone?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Erica Roberts
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:12 AM
> To: Elana Broitman; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F. Connelly
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
>
>
> I underrstand that the process for getting a 'best practices' document
> enshrined in ICANN 'policy' would be roughly as follows:
>
> 1.  Registrars constituency forwards the proposed policy to the NC for
> endorsement.
> 2.  NC posts the proposed policy for public comment and
> specifically seeks a
> response from each of the DNSO constituencies.
> 3.  Comment incorporated into new draft developed by Registrars in liaison
> with NC.
> 4.  New draft published for comment.
> 5.  NC votes on new draft and, if agreed, advises the Board.
> 6.  The BoD considers and votes on the NC advice.
>
> If this is to be incorporated into ICANN policy, there is a
> lengthy process
> to be followed and we need to get to Stage 1 asap.
>
> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
> To: "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 11:03 PM
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>