ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] RAA

  • To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] RAA
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=YOwBFLj/lO5K31MZ8CDj0bs2qYj+LKdp/ZcZUEbqQUPZXvGHaobXoBzi8ltg1stXcjLotByGhY4FKTcm5dKpBSNIOOQOz97kKwc6jFl2qwPK0RQY8Qq4ZGFNcEozf5Ca9AAuUkaTPjDMhN7oRc5vdrnF5k6J3u3rZm6nVKZ/jzA=;
  • In-reply-to: <464A2F8F.2010707@cavebear.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric & Karl:

My immediate concern is that as per discussions in
Lisbon, Paul Twomey was supposed to start a process by
which the RAA could be discussed in a formal setting. 
While the GA indeed may involve itself in a parallel
process, we can probably be of greater assistance by
taking an active role in whatever process Paul brings
forward (in a fashion akin to our current efforts
vis-a-vis the WHOIS initiative).  

The following is the language of the ICANN Board's
Lisbon resolution:  

Resolved (07.__), the Board requests that the
President provide a report on the status of escrow
compliance relating to ICANN?s current agreements, at
or before ICANN?s Meeting in San Juan. The report
should also propose a process for a public discussion
on creation of a policy for appropriate protections
for generic TLD registries, registrars and
registrants. 

Sometime within the next 40 days ICANN's CEO is to
have the above-referenced report ready and a process
that would allow for discussions of the RAA.  

When that process is ready to commence it is my hope
that we can act as a group to thoroughly represent the
registrant interest in the RAA revisions.

best wishes,
Danny


--- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hugh Dierker wrote:
> > I am convinced that this is going to be a very hot
> topic with very 
> > little registrant/individual user representation
> in the formal ICANN 
> > task forces and WGs.  too many view the RAA as a
> contract between the 
> > parties with no Third Party Beneficiary Rights. I
> believe the opposite 
> > is true; That the RAA is only a contract for the
> benefit of the 
> > individual domain name holder.
> 
> The contract explicitly disclaims third party
> beneficiary rights/status.
> 
> That tends to be the determining factor.
> 
> ICANN could try to change it, but it may require the
> consent of the 
> registrar/registry involved unless it can somehow
> become a "consensus policy" 
> to which the registrar/registry has agreed to accept
> in advance.
> 
> Thank ICANN's staff and law firm for this one; it
> was never an explicit 
> question before the board.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>