Re: [registrars] policy development

[Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>]

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here, but if you do this 
successfully I think it would be a great model for what at least some on 
the At-Large Study Committee would like to emulate:  small groups 
developing consensus policy and then putting them forward for broader 
consensus.

It *is* interesting to see that previous  proposals never got forwarded 
up/outwards....  Is there anything we can learn from *that*?  We'd love to 
hear  your comments.  (iI hope it's not a shock to you that I am still on 
this list as an observer....!)

Esther


At 05:02 AM 7/19/2001, erica wrote:
>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
> > >
> > >



Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona