RE: [council] Latest RAA amendments

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

In my opinion it is a very bad and inappropriate precedent for the
Council or invididual members of the Council or community members to
individually try to negotiate terms of contracts that they are not
parties to.  Input is fine.  Opportunity for that has been provided and
the two contract parties have considered that input and negotiated
changes. If we want to indefinitely delay any changes to the RAA, then
we should continue on the path we are on.  If we decide that the
proposed amendments are improvements or at least neutral, then wouldn't
it be better to support them, encourage their implementation and then
use GNSO processes to consider additional changes.

This whole process illustrates to me why having 'community negotiations'
is a rediculous approach.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:52 AM
> To: Liz Gasster; Tim Cole; GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] Latest RAA amendments
> 
> 
> I have received a question from an ALAC member, and the 
> answer might go a long way to understanding the current RAA situation.
> 
> The current version of the RAA amendment package includes two 
> new changes, one of which provides contact information for 
> registrars, the wording of which is widely felt to be 
> inadequate since it could be a mail drop (or equivalent) and 
> not the actual place of business.
> 
> The question is, if these last two changes have just been 
> made, what is the inhibitor stopping additional changes to be 
> made? The specific one in question here would:
> 
> "Registrars on their company Web sites must disclose the 
> physical address of their business, including their 
> headquarters office, and a reliable means to reach them by 
> telephone and e-mail. Post office boxes and e-mail addresses 
> are not sufficient."
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> >Alan,
> >
> >It seems amendments are still being made.  Could you ask 
> staff and GNSO 
> >if they will accept the Consumer Reports standard Beau's proposing:
> >
> >>1. Identity:
> >>Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location 
> where they are 
> >>produced, including an address, a telephone number or 
> e-mail address.
> >>Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, 
> >>naming their parent company.
> >>Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam 
> businesses, 
> >>going the extra mile for physical location where the site 
> is produced 
> >>is necessary.
> >>________________________________________
> >>From: na-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[na-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny 
> >>Younger [dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM
> >>To: At-Large Worldwide
> >>Cc: NA Discuss
> >>Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
> >>
> >>ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order 
> to get the 
> >>GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package.  
> The latest 
> >>amendment added to the package is this:
> >>
> >>3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact 
> >>details including valid email and mailing address.
> >>
> >>Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to 
> >>identify its primary place of business.  The registrar 
> could have its 
> >>primary base of operations in India, yet work through a 
> Delaware-based 
> >>shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian 
> >>mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing 
> >>address).
> >>
> >>Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" 
> >>addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as 
> >>primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive 
> behavior?  
> >>The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address 
> the concerned 
> >>raised by users on this topic.
> >>
> >>Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they 
> will only 
> >>give lip service to user concerns.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>------
> >>NA-Discuss mailing list
> >>NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_a
> tlarge-lis
> >>ts.icann.org
> >>
> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> >>------
> >>
> >>***
> >>Scanned
> >>
> >>**
> >>This e-mail message is intended only for the designated
> >>recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this 
> e-mail and 
> >>any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. 
> If you are 
> >>not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, 
> >>redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any 
> purpose, or 
> >>disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have 
> received this 
> >>e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
> reply e-mail 
> >>and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your 
> >>computer system.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>At-Large mailing list
> >>At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atl
> arge-lists
> >>.icann.org
> >>
> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >At-Large mailing list
> >At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atla
> rge-lists.
> >icann.org
> >
> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> 
>