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

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

You are correct concerning how this issue was dredged up. However, this
particular issue has nothing to do with the voluntary BPS...

More to the point, and not directed at any particular NC rep...If our reps
are having such a hard time keeping track of what we want, then perhaps it's
time for new reps...

-rwr



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; Elana Broitman; Amadeu Abril i Abril; Robert F.
> Connelly
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; Rob Hall
> Subject: Re: [registrars] DomainRegistry.com response to ICANN -
> Verisign
>
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>