Re: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
Title: Re: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
Kristina, Mike, Chuck, et.al.:
So these meetings were started as meetings between ICANN and gTLD registrars to promote understanding of registrar obligations under the RAA – i.e., to improve compliance with RAA contractual conditions. These meetings were especially necessary and useful in certain regions outside the US where, it was thought, that registrar obligations were not well understood. With the accreditation of new registrars, the meetings continue to be very useful for that reason. Registrar fees are used to improve contractual compliance. These discussions are necessarily between ICANN and its contracted parties.
After having meetings for this purpose in Europe and Asia, we received requests to have a similar meeting in North America. Since then, we have had three annual meetings in each of the three regions. After the first meeting or two, Registries asked to be included. Since a large part of the discussion about ensuring a good registrant experience is related to the registry-registrar relationship, registry participation was welcomed. I can understand how participation can seem both obligatory and onerous to registries to some extent – registries generally attend events in all three regions where registrars only attend the event in their region.
The initial meetings were some of the early significant outreach events conducted by ICANN, especially in Asia. Since funding was not available then (and we seek to act responsibly and economically now), we asked participants to sponsor segments – someone pays for lunch, someone pays for dinner, someopne pays for coffee. This year, among others, Afilias sponsored the baseball game trip, Tucows sponsored a dinner, ICANN paid for the meeting room, the meeting planning and coffee. We split the costs. Every participant pays their own way.
In this meeting in Toronto we discussed in detail the plan for transfer of registry operations in the event of a failure and, in a separate session, data transition for terminated registrars. Both these measures are being implemented for the protection of registrants. Both these measures require detailed discussions among registries, registrars and ICANN.
Contractual compliance improvements
Protection of registrants
Split the costs
Implement continuity procedures
On 8/28/09 1:58 PM, "Kristina Rosette" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Gee, Mike, didn't you read the FY2010 budget as approved by the Board? I thought the only two constituencies that exist are the contracted party constituencies. After all, they're the only ones mentioned in the budget. (See Constituency Support sections of the Organizational Activities (Section 4.7, p. 11) and Operating Plan Activities (Appendix A (A.7), p. 34-35)).
Setting aside the irony of only mentioning 2 of 6 constituencies in the budget at a time when we're told that increasing the breadth and depth of stakeholder participation is an organizational goal, I agree that it would be valuable to have the same special access to information and presentations. Personally though, I'd prefer to participate remotely. I already spend about 1 month each year traveling to and attending ICANN meetings. That's enough for me.
There is a little value in being excluded, though. I've definitely gotten mileage out of describing these meetings to the outside world; if we were included, I wouldn't be able to do that. . .
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:58 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
Just curioius, when is the next regional meeting of the non-contracting parties scheduled? Many of us would be very interested to have some of these same discussions and staff presentations, without the contracting parties around. Such meetings might surely enhance knowledge and foster better cooperation between ICANN and its NON-contracted stakeholders.
Really, are these regional meetings really necessary when there are 3 ICANN meetings a year already? And the contracting parties constantly and ubiquitously complaining about travel funding for ICANN Staff and volunteers??
Also, no mention of the Afilias-sponsored Major League Baseball game in this note, but is it a conflict of interest for contract parties to provide perks to ICANN Staff? (I presume some were sponsored, but I do not know.) If so, should they be publicly disclosed somewhere? Is there a policy on that?
Just curious, as it seems there ought to be one if there's not.
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:46 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] News Alert -- Toronto Presentations Published
Toronto Presentations Published
25 August 2009
On 20-21 August 2009, ICANN hosted its North American Registry/Registrar Regional Event in Toronto, Ontario. Remote participation for the event was made available via Adobe Connect and an audio conference bridge.
The regional event model was introduced in 2006 as a means to inform and educate gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars about ICANN activities and processes that may impact their operations. These events also broaden participation in the ICANN multi-stakeholder governance model for registry and registrar staff members who do not generally attend ICANN's annual public meetings. ICANN subject matter experts facilitated discussions on issues such as gTLD registry continuity, contractual compliance, new gTLDs, GNSO policy activities, security initiatives, the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and the terminated registrar transition process.
Such discussions enhance knowledge and foster better cooperation between ICANN and its contracted stakeholders.
The Toronto event also featured a session on registry/registrar areas of interest that was facilitated by David Maher, Chair, Registry Constituency, and Mason Cole, Chair, Registrar Constituency. The chairs co-led a discussion about how the two groups might work better together on joint areas of interest such as electing leaders for the GNSO Council and engaging in discussions when new registry service requests, submitted via the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), have the potential to impact registrars.
In the interest of transparency, the presentations are being made public.
The following information is available about the event:
* Master PPT presentation:
* New gTLDs:
9-en.pdf [PDF, 369K]
Thursday 20 August 09
Friday 21 August 09
gTLD Registry Continuity Plan Workshop
- Patrick Jones (pages 3-33)
- Stacy Burnette (pages 84-96)
New RAA Implementation - Tim Cole
Core Planning Team Meeting/Registry Data Escrow - Patrick Jones
nto-20aug09-en.pdf> - David Maher and Mason Cole
Welcome/Introductions/Key Messages - Craig Schwartz/Tim Cole
- Margie Milam (pages 38-75)
Registrar Constituency Update
toronto-20aug09-en.pdf> - Mason Cole
Terminated Registrar Transition Process - Mike Zupke
- Yurie Ito (pages 103-134)
09-en.pdf> - Kurt Pritz
National Cyber Forensic Training Alliance <http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/regional-gathering-toronto-20aug09-en.pdf>
(NCFTA) (pages 136-155)
Glen de Saint Géry