Re: [registrars] policy development

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Esther Dyson wrote:
> 
> 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*? 

Most people can find the time to put
out fires and oil squeaky wheels. 
Everything else typically waits.

Additionally, it is hard to keep track of all the issues, the status of
them, the various opinions, the deadlines etc. 

I had suggested at one point  that a "moderated" software application 
could be created to keep track of everything. That way you could log
in and review the various information, opinions, and
make an informed decision (and even vote at
the appropriate time). This would be most valuable
for decision makers, as opposed to people who are just 
reading the list for some other purpose.

(With the new 4 person team things will move forward
and not get lost, but I am not sure everyone will
be able to understand the issues well enough to
make an informed decision in the case of a vote.)


Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

 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

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------