RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

This might have been a good idea a while ago, but if ICANN is expecting to 
make a decision in September, I would think that giving input so late in 
the game might not have any impact.  I think the meeting is better spent 
talking with the new registry operator for ORG, whoever that is.

A US meeting in October might still be a good idea.  How many registrars 
are planning to go to the ICANN meeting in Shanghi?

Jim

--On Friday, July 26, 2002 11:21 AM -0500 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

> I agree with this idea as well.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:21 AM
> To: 'Rob Hall'; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question
>
>
>> Why not invite all the applicants to come speak to us.  If
>> they want to show up, they can.
>>
>> But even if they don't, we can still have a debate on what we
>> want to see, and then issue a communiqué on what we want, as
>> opposed to be reactive to what the winner decides.
>
> I strongly advocate that we proceed with this idea. If one remembers
> back to the new gTLD creation process, the IP constituency issued a
> similar communique that was very well received by both the applicants
> and the board. If we are to make our opinion matter, now is the time to
> act. All too often our constituency shows up at the ICANN meetings
> without a decided position going in. Using these face to face meetings
> effectively will mean that we can go into the ICANN meeting and use our
> time lobbying our position(s) instead of deciding them.
>
> It would make sense at this point to strike a working group to come up
> with a draft communique that we can discuss and refine at the September
> meeting. This will ensure that we have a strong focal point upon which
> we can base our efforts. Designing a draft communique in the meeting
> will be painful (as we have seen in the past).
>
> It would make sense that this WG table their document for review with
> the constituency 14 days prior to the meeting in order that the
> membership can digest it and prepare for the discussion ahead of time.
>
> I would also recommend that this working group consist of three or four
> people that have an awareness of the basic issues, have no material
> involvement with any of the bids and include at least one member of the
> ExCom on an oversight basis.
>
> Of course, I would be pleased to assist with this effort.
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
>> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 10:44 AM
>> To: registrars@dnso.org
>> Subject: [registrars] The .ORG Question
>>
>>
>> Hello All:
>>
>> As Rick mentioned to the Registrar list yesterday evening,
>> ICANN has announced that the decision on .ORG is not likely
>> to be announced until the end of September. One of the
>> principle reasons that this meeting was being convened was to
>> provide the new registry operator the unique opportunity to
>> met in person with those registrars that control well 90% of
>> the .org market share to discuss technical and legal issues
>> (i.e. contracts, bonds, etc.) . The Executive Committee
>> viewed this as critical in guaranteeing a smooth seamless
>> transition between registry operators. Particularly in light
>> of the fact that some potential bidders have no existing
>> relationship with ICANN accredited registrars.
>>
>> The Registrar meeting is tentatively scheduled for the
>> weekend of September 21-22. Although a decision on .org is
>> possible by then, there is no guarantee from ICANN that this
>> will happen. Pushing the meeting back one week is complicated
>> by the fact that Afilias is having a shareholder meeting and
>> a number of registrars will be attending that meeting in
>> Dublin. Therefore in order to maximize registrar
>> participation, the meeting would have to be pushed back till
>> October 5-6. This date is only three weeks before the
>> Shanghai meeting.
>>
>> Therefore as the Executive Committee begins its search to
>> find a suitable meeting location (accessible to major airport
>> hub and reasonable hotel accommodations), we need to have
>> feedback ASAP as to whether to shift the date to guarantee
>> that the .org winner will be able to address the constituency
>> and enhance the likelihood of a smooth seamless transition.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>