[registrars] Proposed process for registrars constituency to input into the ICANN Policy development process

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

Hello All,

With the recent discussion regarding the participation of members of the
registrars constituency in Names Council task forces, and the need to reach
Consensus before ICANN will make changes to registry or registrar
agreements, I propose the following Registrars Constituency process going
forward for discussion at the registrars meeting in Shanghai.

This process is designed to fit in with the new ICANN Policy development
process.

Registrars Constituency (RC) Process for Policy Development
======================================================

(1) Policy initiation occurs within GNSO (currently Names Council) (day 1).

(2) RC opens up nominations for a representative of any task force formed -
for a period of 7 days.

(3) Registrar constituency opens up a voting period for 48 hours to elect a
representative.

(4) Registrars constituency notifies the ICANN community of its
representative (day 10)

(5) Registrars constituency (RC) calls for volunteers to work with registrar
representative (RR) to develop a draft a registrar position statement, and
post to the list after 10 days (day 20).

(6) RC commences discussion on draft registrar position statement, and
drafting team refines it to produce the final registrar position statement,
after a further 10 days.  During this time the Registrars representative
will seek to build support for our position amongst the other stakeholders
in the policy development process - (day 30)

(6) RC opens up a voting period for 48 hours to vote on the registrar
position statement

(7) RC provides position statement to task force or policy development group
- (day 35)

(8) Registrars rep works with other stakeholders to reach a consensus
position

(9) When the preliminary task force report is available, the RC calls for
discussion on the list (and via teleconference), prior to a vote on the task
force report (this will measure whether registrars in general support the
broad directions of the report or not).  

(10) After 7 days, RC opens up a voting period for 48 hours to vote on the
preliminary task force report.

(11) Over the next 10 days, RC works with RR to produce a registrars
position statement in response to the task force report.

(12) RC opens up a voting period for 48 hours to vote on the registrar
position statement in response to the preliminary task force report.

(13) Registrars Rep works with other stakeholders to improve the task force
report

(14) When the final task force report is available, registrars allow 2 days
for discussion, and then vote on the final task force report.  If time
allows, registrars will also produce a position statement on the final task
force report.

(14) Registrar council members will formally vote on the final task force
report, based on the result of the registrars constituency vote.


***************************************88


I also suggest we define a quorum for email voting to be valid of at least
10 votes from financial members.  A resolution is passed on a simple
majority of those that voted.  A resolution is consider to have consensus if
it has a 2/3 majority of those that voted.

In the tighter time frame above, the registrars representative will have
current registrars position statements to work from.  

In the case of the transfers task force, the last formal position statement
was developed over a year ago - which means opinions may have changed.  

In the case of the WHOIS task force, there was never a formal registrars
position statement developed - which makes it very hard for our
representatives to work on our behalf.

Note in the case of the deletes task force, the registrars initial position
statement is due 8 Nov 2002.  We should schedule a vote starting say 6 Nov
2002, which means that we need to start developing the position on deletes
during our meeting in Shanghai.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin