RE: [council] RAA Amendments discussion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,
 
Please see my responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:14 AM
        To: 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: RE: [council] RAA Amendments discussion
        
        

        Hi Chuck,

         

        Your position is complicated by the facts that this contract
negotiation affects hundreds of different registrars, only some of whom
are represented in the Registrar Constituency. [Gomes, Chuck]  The
requirement to implement consensus policies is not restricted to members
of the RC.  More importantly, those hundreds of registrars have millions
of contracts with registrants represented by other constituencies, who
are directly impacted by the RAA.  Changes to the RAA are, in effect,
changes to DNS policy.  [Gomes, Chuck]  Not sure I understand your point
here.  If RAA changes modified consensus policies, then I think that
would be a problem that the GNSO should address.  If RAA changes are
made that do not violate any consensus policy and both contracted
parties agree to the changes, then the recourse for the GNSO would be to
consider policy development for any areas of interest.  But to bypass
the policy development process would avoid the bottom-up process and to
delay contract finalization until PDPs were completed would
unnecessarily delay contract improvements that are useful and without
controversy.

         

        There ought to have been better methods and greater effort to
involve the users in these discussions.  But since you are suggesting
that we should choose specific issues for further policy development, I
guess we have no other choice.

         

        -Mike

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:19 PM
        To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
        Subject: RE: [council] RAA Amendments discussion

         

        Mike,

         

        It is the responsibility of the GNSO to develop policy, not
negotiate contracts.  A community wide negotiations process would be a
very strange model and one that would be fraught with problems and
likely totally unfeasible.  Comment opportunities were provided as you
indicate and that is as it should be, but the negotiations process needs
to be between the contracting parties.

         

        At the same time, if there are issues in the RAA that seem
worthy of policy development, we have procedures for that.  If consensus
policy is developed within the picket fence and approved by the Board,
then registries and registrars are required to implement them.
Therefore it seems to me that the proper approach would be for the GNSO
to focus on specific policy issues rather than contract terms except for
contract terms that involve already established consensus policy and for
which compliance is in question.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
                Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:01 PM
                To: 'Council GNSO'
                Subject: [council] RAA Amendments discussion

                Hi all,

                 

                I see 15 mins on tomorrow's agenda for this topic, and
only a link to this letter from the US Government to the Chair of the
ICANN Board.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/pdfXG2oUDNceq.pdf.  I have
no idea what our discussion was going to be about, and so I try to kick
off a talk on the list.  I appreciate the letter and hope we as a
Council can respond by moving WHOIS studies forward at long last, and
meanwhile (at minimum) formally object to the newly proposed RAA
amendments wrt WHOIS proxy services.  

                 

                The entire RAA amendment "process" has not involved the
GNSO.  Instead there have been two very long rounds of bi-lateral
negotiations between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency.  There
was one round of public comment in between (though it is difficult to
understand how public comments played any significant role in the second
draft), and one just closed wrt the second draft.  

                 

                The RAA amendments involve many changes to existing gTLD
policy as embodied in the existing, many-year old RAA.  Public comments
from several constituencies indicate substantial disagreement with many
of the suggested amendments.  The Council really should consider the
proposed amendments formally and with the goal of consensus comments,
and to record constituency and/or minority comments.  Yet this may be
far too late at this point, it is unclear what the "process" is and how
GNSO might impact it, and some of the RAA amendments are unobjectionable
and should be implemented immediately.  

                 

                Still, some of the suggested amendments are completely
unacceptable.  So we need to figure out a way to formally register those
concerns and ensure they will be heard, while not unduly stalling the
entire process.  The only other option would be to request Issues
Reports on various of the suggested amendments?  

                 

                Thanks,

                Mike