RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim, I fully support this process as now more clearly stated. I just 
don't want to set unreasonable expectations about what will be in the 
charter at day one, from what we hope to build in the longer term process.
If I understood the motion, it called upon us to deliver a draft 
charter by July 31, AND a methodology/plan for going forward with the 
longer term process, also by that same date.
Alan

At 17/04/2009 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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