RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Right. We fully understand that the Registrant Rights/Responsibilities
Charter is a dynamic document. I think we can get to an initial postable
version *relatively* quick. As discussions continue and more contentious
issues are resolved it can be updated as necessary.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 9:06 am
To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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