[registrars] Re: Registrar Code of Conduct (RCoC)

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

Jim, 

There is another concern.  This is not simply a "voluntary code" that only 
applies to Registrars that sign it, or are members of the constituency. 

This code becomes part of our contracts with ICANN.  In our contract, if any 
code of conduct is adopted, it becomes a mandatory part of each Registrars 
contract. 

So it won't have the effect of driving members out of the constuency.  But 
it may have the larger effect of driving them (and their business models) 
out of existence. 

I concur with you that this must be a well thought out and debated code.  
The fact that it becomes a contractual oblication once approved means we are 
effectively negotiating new contracts with ICANN, and some of these 
principles may need some serious debate. 

I concur with not signing up at this point, and suggest we move ahead with 
the debates surounding each item.  Some will be easy, others will be 
contentious. 

Perhaps we can put this on the agenda in Bucharest for discussion.  If I 
recall, we had breakout meetings to deal with it in the past.  I note that 
ICANN has published the agenda for Bucharest.  As I suspect Tuesday will be 
our typical day long constituency meeting, perhaps this can be done on the 
Monday before it (when ICANN has alloted time for other constituency 
business). 

Rob. 

Jim Archer writes: 

> I have no idea what motivated it and I'm not saying I am opposed to it, 
> nor do I wish any such implication to be drawn from my question.  
> Conversely, I am not saying I support it or that I want that implication 
> to be drawn from the previous sentance.  In fact, I'll be clear:  I take 
> no position at this time on the content of the document.  None. 
> 
> Now, on to the real issue.  Even if we were "directed" to create such a 
> thing, it seems that the membership, **at a very minimum**, needs to (1) 
> agree that we want such a thing (because we can still say no), (2) be 
> actively involved in its creation should we decide we want one and (3) 
> approve its content and posting before it is posted and we are told we 
> "can" sign on to it. 
> 
> Both having and not having your companies name attached to such a thing 
> speaks volumes, but I can't say for sure I know exactly what is being 
> said. Its very existence forces members of the DNSO to make a public 
> statement that is not without political overtones, while those companies 
> which are not members of the DNSO are free to point out that they lack the 
> option to sign it because they are not members.  This may tend to put 
> members of the DNSO in a difficult, unfair and unwanted position. 
> 
> So what is this, an attempt to reduce membership?  Of course not, but it 
> may well have that effect.  For one, I feel that the posting of this 
> document publicly without the prior formal approval of the DNSO 
> membership, especially in DRAFT form, is a grave error and that registrars 
> should not be compelled to sign on to it, and also should not be compelled 
> to refuse to sign it. 
> 
> In short, I think it needs to come down immediately, before the serious 
> trouble starts. No one has yet signed on to it, so if it comes down now, 
> no harm done. 
> 
> Jim 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, May 13, 2002 7:08 PM -0700 "Robert F. Connelly" 
> <rconnell@psi-japan.com> wrote: 
> 
>> At 08:47 PM 5/13/02 -0400, Jim Archer wrote:
>>> Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall the DNSO voting to adopt
>>> an  interim code of conduct and post it as something officially created
>>> by the  DNSO.  Was such a vote taken?
>> 
>> The way I heard it, ICANN *directed* us to create one.  Regards, BobC 
>> 
>  
> 
> *****************************
> Jim Archer, CEO
> Registration Technologies, Inc.
> 10 Crestview Drive
> Greenville, RI 02828
> voice: 401-949-4768
> fax: 401-949-5814
> jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
> http://www.RegistrationTek.com 
>