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

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I think you are right Ross, but as I recall it, his whole thread came up in
response to a discussion about anti-warehousing provisions and their
enforcement.  If we are talking about enforcement, we need a consensus-based
policy endorsed by the NC.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; "Elana Broitman"
<ebroitman@register.com>; "Amadeu Abril i Abril" <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
"Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>; "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:28 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN - Verisign


> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>