RE: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Tom,

You ask good questions.

See http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-21aug02.htm
for an approach being considered for the names council (called Generic Names
Supporting Org in future).  The matters discussed in that document could
form the basis of an equivalent document for the registrars constituency.

It discusses how issues are raised to a policy level, and talks about a
total 95 day process.

Regards,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 12:23 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Questions for Amsterdam
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> due to the fact that I cannot participate on todays call I would 
> like to put forth some questions for further discussion in Amsterdam. 
> 
> All of this questions are related to the RCs bylaws and the process of
> policy-development. Knowing that there are a lot of 
> interessting topics 
> in the pipe right now and a lot of issues that we should deal with to
> assure a a safe future (i.e. funding, .org) I still would 
> like to discuss 
> this questions. In my believes a well defined and good 
> working process is
> essential for an effectiv and efficient policy-development. This issue
> has been picked up by varios members on various occasion and a lot
> of discussion how a process could look like has taken place. Thought
> of all the work that has been done on this subject (see all the mails
> from Mike, Ross, Bruce Tonkin, Rob Hall ... the list would be 
> endless) it
> is a pity that no final process has been achieved.
> 
> Please note that I have not answered the questions myself. I didn't,
> having in mind, that it might be a good idea that if this 
> should become
> a topic in Amsterdam people could forward complete 
> positioning papers regarding 
> these or related question to the list. Comparing and 
> evaluating well tought 
> papers might be more efficient as discussing only one proposal.
> 
> As a final remark I want to mention that I used the word voting on
> purpose because I don't believe that consensus can be achieved in an 
> enviroment of competition. This might be against the ICANN spirit but
> I just can't help myself on this point ;)
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Process:
> - how can an issue be elevated to a topic of general interest ?
> - how long can a topic be discussed before a decision has to 
> be found ?
> - how long shall a decision be valid ?
> 
> Voting rules:
> - what participation must be reached for a quorum ?
> - what majority must be reached to finalize a decision ?
> 
> RC Discussion: 
> - can there be straw polls to direct the course of discussion ?
> 
> Representation of the RC within ICANN
> - are the NC reps obliged to reflect all positions of the RC
>   and if yes how will this be achieved ?
> - are RC members working in ICANN working groups bound to
>   "decisions" prior made from the RC ?
> 
> Best
> 
> tom
> 
> -
> 
> Thomas Keller
> 
> Domain Services
> Schlund + Partner AG
> Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel. 
> +49-721-91374-534
> 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax  
> +49-721-91374-215
> http://www.schlund.de                                    
> tom@schlund.de      
> 
>