RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Jim,

I may have misunderstood, but I thought this would be a communique/position
for the new ORG registry. If so, it is still a good idea.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] The .ORG Question
   From: Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>
   Date: Fri, July 26, 2002 1:41 pm
   To: tim@godaddy.com, ross@tucows.com, "'Rob Hall'" <rob@momentous.ca>,
         "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>, registrars@dnso.org

   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