Re: [registrars] policy development

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

To the best of my knowledge none of the 'morgue' docs has been referred to
the NC by the Registrars constituency - so, if this is right, there has
never been any attempt to make them consensus policy docs.
(Last time I asked re the Code of Conduct, it seemed to be the view of the
constituency that it should be trailled first as a voluntary code and there
was no interest in moving it forward to the NC).
I would be v pleased to bring Registrar policy proposals to the NC so that
the NC can put them out for comment by the other constituencies.  Such
policy proposals will almost certainly be subject to amendment in the light
of comments from other constituencies but this is not necessarily a
problem - but could well be a significant benefit resulting in better
policies.
However, we need to decide as a constituency whether we want to drive policy
development (by developing policy drafts and referring these drafts to the
NC), or whether we are content to work in a policy vacuum and allow 'policy'
to be developed in an ad hoc manner in response to the latest crisis.
For my part, I would like to see the Registrars drive the development of a
general policy framework which can provide for a greater level of
predictability and provide a framework within which ICANN staff must work.
Comments??

erica
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: "'Robert F. Connelly'" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>; "Registrar
Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: [registrars] policy development


> Well I think the issue is between voluntary standards developed within the
> constituency, and changes to agreements that need to go through a long
> process and the ICANN Board and become mandatory rather than voluntary.
>
> It would be good if registrars could at least start to agree on the former
> as a first step to the latter.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@psi-japan.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:37 AM
> > To: Registrar Constituency
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [council] Policies Concerning Allocation
> > of Expiring Names in .com/.net/.org
> >
> >
> > At 09:32 AM 7/19/01 +1000, Liz Williams wrote:
> >
> > >Despair not!  After the elections are held you'll see lots
> > of lovely fresh
> > >faces around the place willing and able to steer your morgue
> > list below and
> > >many others to policy fruition.
> >
> > Dear Liz:  We're told the disconnect was between the
> > constituency and the
> > Names Council and/or between the Names Council and the ICANN Board.
> >
> > Regards, BobC
> >
> >