Re: [registrars] Please Consider the Following

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

Dear Mike - I believe that it would undermine the constituency to open it to
non-ICANN accredited registrars.  As Ken had earlier stated, it would allow
companies that do not have to live by accreditation rules to affect
registrar policies and possibly concensus policies, which change ICANN
agreements.  It would dilute the voice of accredited registrars,
particularly some of the smaller companies, which already raise concerns
about their meaningful ability to participate.  It could be dilutive of
ICANN's authority and policies by allowing participation by companies that
ICANN has either rejected for accreditation or which have decided not to
pursue accreditation in order to avoid ICANN's reach.  Finally, it could
create arbitrary policies for constituency membership - what is the rule for
who may join?

I think to follow on Tim's letter, however, we might consider establishing a
constituency outreach mechanism to related organizations such as CIRA.  That
would address the potential benefits, without diluting the constituency.  In
fact, this function could be incorporated in the expanded constituency
leadership's responsiblities.

Thanks, Elana

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>
To: Timothy M. Denton <tmdenton@magma.ca>
Cc: Registrars List <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:43 PM
Subject: [registrars] Please Consider the Following


> Dear Tim:
>
> Thank you for your informative note.  In reading your note, it actually
> raised a question that I would like to put forth to the entire registrar
> constituency as we move forward with reorganizing the constituency.
Should
> the constituency consider opening up some sort of membership (i.e.
> affiliate, junior, non-voting etc. status) to non-ICANN accredited
> registrars.
>
> Now before answering please consider the following. In Berlin, at the
> constituency's first meeting, there was a motion put forth by NSI, before
> they became part of the ICANN family, that the constituency be open to
> non-ICANN accredited registrars. Ivan Pope was also a strong proponent of
> this motion. Those registrars in attendance rejected this idea, and I as
the
> interim secretariat had the honor of getting up before the General
Assembly
> and informing them that the registrars constituency was only open to ICANN
> accredited registrars. Needless to say I came under some heavy criticism
> reminiscence of last month's Melbourne meeting :-)
>
> Amadeu suggested that I contact registry operators to see if they had any
> criteria for accredited registrars. After Berlin, and before Chile, I sent
> out an email to every ccTLD operator inquiring about whether they had
> criteria for accrediting registrars. I received a small handful of
responses
> that basically stated that the registry operator did not use registrars.
>
> I reported this fact in Chile. In Chile when other constituency's began to
> adopt restrictive charters, nothing more was made of the request. Now this
> walk down memory lane was not just merely for nostalgia reasons but to
> revisit this question in light of changing circumstances.
>
> Specifically, the .CA accreditation of registrars, VeriSign's
accreditation
> of registrars for the .TV TLD, and other ccTLD operators practices. Should
> the constituency consider some type of position for these entities within
> our organization?
>
> Although I share everyone's concern about an non-ICANN accredited
registrars
> impacting policy that they would not have to live by, an argument made
very
> effectively by Ken Stubbs against Don Telage and David Johnson's motion in
> Berlin (seems like yesterday doesn't Ken). If the much heralded
> consolidation within the registrars industry takes place, how many ICANN
> accredited registrars will be left in 4 years. Will this small number
> justify a constituency unto itself. Or would it be wise to gather more
> voices so that when an issues comes up to ICANN we can speak with an
> amplified voice of many instead of just a few?
>
> I have no preference and only put it forward for discussion to the list
> based upon Tim 's original email. I agree that any potential consideration
> would have to have safeguards to prevent, these new members from voting on
> issues directly impacting ICANN accredited registrar viewpoints. And it
may
> be best to address these issues after the new constituency leadership is
in
> place.
>
> Just some thoughts, and a little history lesson for some of the new
comers.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Timothy M. Denton
> > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:08 PM
> > To: michael@palage.com
> > Cc: Registrars List; Ca-reg Announce
> > Subject: [registrars] Message from the ca-registrars association
> >
> >
> > April 6, 2001
> >
> > Mr. Michael Palage
> > Secretary, the Association
> > of  ICANN-accredited registrars in the DNSO
> >
> > michael@palage.com
> >
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> > I am writing to you in my capacity as the representative of
> > the Canadian
> > registrars in the .ca namespace. In that capacity I sit on the Board of
> > CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (www.cira.ca), which
is
> > the corporation that manages the .ca namespace. Two hundred thousand .ca
> > registrations have been made as of now.
> >
> > My purposes in writing you are, first, to introduce you to
> > the existence of
> > the .ca- registrars, and second, to offer our cooperation I matters of
> > mutual interest.
> >
> > The ca-registrars are without formal legal organization at
> > this time.
> > However, it is expected that, in the course of this year, we will begin
to
> > move beyond an e-mail listserve into some kind of association status
under
> > the Canada Corporations Act. As with the Registrars' Association under
the
> > ICANN umbrella, we have been reluctant to engender expenses.
> >
> > An election to the Board of CIRA will be held this summer,
> > and the original
> > appointed Board of Directors will be replaced with one elected by the
> > holders of .ca names, which is the electorate in this case.
> >
> > As we are in touch frequently on matters of common interest
> > in the ICANN
> > forum, I am sure it will prove possible to continue cooperation of .ca
> > registrars and ICANN-accredited registrars on matters of mutual
interest.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Timothy Denton
> >
> >
> > T.M.Denton, BA,BCL
> > tmdenton.com
> > 1-613-789-5397
> > 37 Heney Street
> > Ottawa, Ontario
> > Canada K1N 5V6
> > www.tmdenton.com
> >
> >
>
>