[registrars] Constituency Update

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

During the Executive Committee call this Monday, the following was
discussed:

I. MEETING LOCATION:

It appears that our European colleagues voting as a block have prevailed in
selecting Amsterdam as the preferred location of our next meeting. Who says
ICANN is US centric, if other constituencies were only so open, transparent
and democratic.

In an effort to minimize costs and increase travel accommodations, it is
being proposed that the meeting begin Friday afternoon with a 2-6 PM session
followed by an all-day session on Saturday 9-5. The reason for this proposed
schedule is as follows. Most North American (NA) flights into Amsterdam
leave in the evening and arrive in the morning, while most departing flights
back to NA are in the morning. This allows NA travelers to leave Thursday
evening, and arrive Friday morning with enough time to refresh at the hotel
before starting the first day of meetings. Additionally, with the meeting
ending on Saturday evening, that allows most NA travelers to catch the
Sunday morning flight back to NA in time for work on Monday while still
having the benefit of reduced air fare for a Saturday stay.

Ken Stubbs has been doing some initial reconnaissance on facilities in
Amsterdam. It appears that hotels that would have the necessary block of
rooms/faculties available are running approximately $240 per night. If any
of our European colleagues could help find a better rate it would be much
appreciated.

For those registrars that will be unable to attend the Amsterdam meeting, we
are exploring the possibility of having a small get together in connection
with the FTC Whois meeting scheduled for the morning of the 19th. Based upon
the proposed travel schedule, those registrars attending the FTC meeting
will have to hop on a plane the evening of the 19th to make the start of the
Friday evening session on the 20th. Therefore, any potential meeting would
have to take place on the 18th in connection with those people arriving the
day before the FTC meeting.


II. .ORG REDELEGATION

ICANN has posted an update on the .org redelgation process at
http://www.icann.org/announcements/update-04aug02.htm. Based on the late
September deadline, we do not believe it is likely that we will know the
successor registry operator by the time of our meeting. Although we thought
it beneficial to have the new registry operator speak to the registrars
during this meeting there will be more than enough other material for us to
cover.

Based upon some discussion on the list about the Registrars taking a
position on .org (since we are going to play a critical part in this stable
transition) this topic has been discussed by the Executive Committee.
Originally I was opposed to the registrars taking a formal position because
so many registrars have either a direct or indirect relationship to the
bidders, including myself. In fact, approximately 50% of the registrar
constituency members are associated with a bid.

The question which the Executive Committee has struggled with is what should
or should not be done. Some have argued that the constituency should take no
position, and that registrars should post their own letters of support like
some have done already. Others have argued that the purpose of the
constituency is to provide a collective voice of all registrars on important
issues, and the fact that half the constituency is not associated with a bid
should not penalize them from recognizing the benefit of the constituency on
important issues.

Therefore, the Executive Committee is looking for feedback from you on these
issue.

Should the Constituency issue a report on .org?
Note: we issued a statement previously in connection with the Names Council
.org report.

If so what should the parameters of the report be?


Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
on behalf of the Registrar Executive Committee