Re: [ga] RAA

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Danny for that update. I know we can count on you to keep us up to speed on developments, just as you have been doing for years.
   
  I am extremely pleased with the GA involvement in the Whois wg. I take your advice as sound at this time regarding waiting on the RAA wg. But my worry is that the RAA work will not be as open and transparent as what we are witnessing with the whois.
  Hopefully I am wrong.
   
  As much educating us on the issues as you have time for would be greatly appreciated.
   
  Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  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 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 


       
---------------------------------
Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection
in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.