Re: [registrars] policy development

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

>
> The silly thing is that ICANN said they wanted a code of conduct, an
escrow
> system and they did not want registrars to warehouse --- but none of these
> items have seen the light of day.
>
> Regards, BobC

I don't think we can blame ICANN for this.  If we want a bottom up policy
development process, we need to follow the process.  As I see it, any
constituency can propose policy, but the NC cannot recommend the policy to
ICANN until it has established a level of agreement/consensus support by the
DNSO.  Once support by the DNSO is established, ICANN is more or less bound
to accept the policy recommendation.
The Registrars constituency has more or less completed proposed draft
policies but has never either referred them to the NC or other consituencies
for support.  That is, we have never followed the bottom up policy
development process.
I think it would be very useful if the constitueny were to propose a policy
development program and begin by setting down basic parameters which can be
expected to win widespread support.  As we have already discovered, matters
which many of us had thought were ICANN policy, are not necessarily so
accepted by ICANN.  Given that ICANN is under pressure to rollout new gTLDs,
it may be timely to put some policy positions on the board - eg: ICANN
accredited registrars should be  accredited by ICANN to become Registrars
for any/all new gTLDs, any new gTLD registries must provide equal access to
all ICANN accredited registrars.
Food for thought....

erica

>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Measure twice and cut once."
>  From "Little Britches".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>