RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or
deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely
with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further
discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes
sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if
serially works better that's fine too.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I
could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were
implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15:

3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that
ICANN has
published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and
responsibilities, and the
content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars,
Registrar shall
provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain
name registration
or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as
clearly as its links
to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN
Consensus Policies.

This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his
point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for
everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that
we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with
Bill that the name needs to stay).

Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and
ALAC will be. 

I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the
scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion
passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA
amendments" section.

Alan


At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote:

 Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and
make a proposal that
may save us all a lot of time.

Background
The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes.

Question
What is the best way to do this ?

Proposal
1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING  registrants'
rights including (and
separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise).
2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that
registrants want (mostly a
Users exercise).
3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these
additional rights and
voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint
users / suppliers
exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE.
4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward
to be implemented by
RAA changes. 

That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I
said on the call, and
from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach.
The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of
a "charter of
rights."
As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology.


Philip