[registrars] Teleconference

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Hello All:

The Executive Committee has planned a teleconference for next Tuesday
details provided below. The topic of discussion is ICANN restructuring. To
facilate the discussion we have included a proposed outline of discussion.
Written comments to the list would be greatly appreciated.


Conference Date: Tuesday, April 2nd
Conference Time:  5:00 PM Eastern

Conference Dial-in Number: 1-641-594-7002
Guest Pass-code:  4496

1. At conference time, all participants dial the Conference Dial-In number.
2. At the prompt, enter the pass-code followed by the # key. Multiple
Leaders are allowed.
3. Guests will hear music until the Leader enters the call.
4. Secure Hang-Up:  When the last Leader hangs up, the conference is
terminated for all Guests.


GOAL: Presentation of a report by May 14 addressing the following:

- Common points of agreement on those elements that are essential toward the
economic viability of registrars (i.e. security, stability, policy
development, domain name portability, new TLDs, etc.)
- Common points of agreement on those elements that are ancillary toward
registrars economic interests (i.e. at large representation, etc.)
- Response to the concepts that Stuart Lynn set forth in his paper


INITIAL HOME WORK:

- Experiences of the Registrar Constituency in connection with
inefficiencies of the current process;
- Identification of those areas identified below which are essential and
ancillary toward our core business


AREAS OF DISCUSSION:

1. Funding Questions:
1.a - Are registrars willing to pay more to contribute to the viability of
ICANN?
1.b - Do Registrars believe that based upon their significant contribution
to ICANN funding, its direct contractual relationship with ICANN, and the
ability for ICANN to significantly impact its business that it should have
some type of direct board representation?
1.c -Does ICANN's proposed reliance on government funding solve ICANN's long
term financial problems?


2. Advisory Bodies Questions:
2.a - Is the proposed change from a binding consensus process to advisory
stakeholder consultation, where the Board can make policy decisions, not
simply ratify or reject them a good or bad idea based upon our experience to
date?
2.b - Has the DNSO functioned to meet the expectations and business needs of
registrars?
2.c - Has the ASO functioned to meet the expectations and business needs of
registrars?
2.d - Has the PSO functioned to meet the expectations and business needs of
registrars?
2.e - What is the Registrars Role in connection with gTLDs and ccTLDs
2.f - Are the proposed advisory committees (technical, government) a good
idea?
2.g - Are the proposed standing committees (security, root server
operation)a good idea?

3. Composition of Managing Body of the Advisory Bodies
3.a - change of 21 member Names Council to 6+5 Steering Committee of new
gTLD Policy Council
3.b - change for other SOs
3.c - role of nomination committee

4. Stakeholder participation
4.a - change of elected reps on NC from constituencies, to Forums with
appointed representation
4.b - idea of additional self-appointed discussion Forums
4.c - Viability of an at-large membership body

5. Board composition including At-large
5.a - increase/change in ability of new Board to make policy
5.b - inclusion of chairs of advisory bodies
5.c - inclusion of government nominees as surrogate for at-large
5.d - change of size of board/trustees
5.e - role of nominating committee.

6. Transparency
6.a - The viability and usefulness of an ombudsman
6.B - The viability and usefulness of a public participation manager