I don't think that was what I was saying at all. For the record, no such thing was decided. I can point you to the MP3 and you can see for yourself. In fact, we explicitly did not decide anything at that time. The GNSO has been told that they have a binary decision to be made (this is my wording, not that of ICANN staff). Endorse the proposed RAA amendments by a 2/3 vote, or not. Regardless of that decision, the policy process can be started on RAA-related issues. The policy process starts with an Issues Report and can then lead to a full-blown PDP. Some aspects of the proposed RAA amendments could be addressed through the PDP process. Some might be deemed to be contractual issues and out of scope. If out of scope, the GNSO can STILL do a PDP, but there is a much higher threshold required to do so. Alan At 24/11/2008 11:41 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Opening this discussion up to the broader ALAC, hope no one minds.
Adding to this: I was recently told by a reliable source that during an early November GNSO council wrap-up it was basically agreed there would be no further RAA review or negotiations in the foreseeable future.
Which I guess is sort of what you are saying. I think that may mean we need to initiate a PDP if we believe that the current amendments are not sufficient as is. Also, someone clarified that ICANN does keep registrar contact data for emergencies, but it includes things like the home addresses of CEOs, so there may be some trouble with releasing that -- also, apparently, the registrars have said they won't agree to any Web site contact data requirement.
So if we believe that this requirement is important enough we should initiate a PDP or whatever bureaucratic step is necessary. It would seem, given the comments from users to the RAA-WG list, that the user community believes disclosure of the transparency information is very important.
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:30 AM To: Brendler, Beau; dannyyounger@yahoo.com; Robert Guerra Cc: NA Discuss Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
Thanks beau.
Regarding the "one minor nuance", my belief is that if the GNSO does anything other than to approve the current amendment package (that is, if they start discussing the merits of particular issues) there is no chance of a fast-path approach, everything would potentially be on the table, and we are back at square-one in terms of timing and agreements. If we don't touch the current package I think there is a possibility that (as implied by ICANN legal staff) the GNSO can ratify the proposed amendments and it is a done-deal.
Note that I do not really understand why we (the GNSO) can accept this package by simply ratifying but would need to initiate a full-fledged PDP if we re-open the entire discussion, but that is what I think I heard, and as I understand it, both ICANN legal counsel and (at least some) registrars have agreed on this position (because the definition of Consensus Policy was not linked to the current PDP process at the time the registrars's agreement was first signed). It will be further discussed at the December GNSO meeting.
Alan
At 24/11/2008 11:10 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
One minor nuance here is that I think there was some agreement among members of the ALAC that we should try to, basically, fast-track an amendment to the existing RAA amendments that would require registrars to provide basic business information (address, contact information, physical location, etc.) I reference, for instance, the letter below from Mark Parker as an example.
Towards the end of the ALAC meeting with registrars in Cairo, a member of ICANN staff whose name I did not catch, who I think is based in Belgium, noted that this information already exists and is kept on record by ICANN (?) Perhaps we could get some memory refreshment here from Matthias or Nick so that we can determine whether we need to advocate loudly and quickly to add this transparency requirement as an amendment, or whether we need to make this before-unheard-of data more available to the user community.
As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we did provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on in September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our current one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium," is accurate of where we left things with the RAA. If not, we should figure that out now, it sounds like.
Beau
(example letter follows)
Dear ICANN RAA Consultation Staff,
I am writing to you to request a change in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement that will improve transparency and accountability. It has come to my attention as an Internet user that there is no requirement in the standard Registrar contract to that requires public disclosure of Registrar ownership or location. I am concerned that this loophole in the agreement opens the door to fraud, secrecy and consumer abuse. Please consider adding the following language or equivalent to the RAA:
*"All Accredited Registrars must submit main office location, including country, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory. Post Office boxes, Incorporation addresses, and mail-forwarding locations will not be acceptable. Registrars must also provide for public display the name of CEO or President. ICANN must be notified within 30 days of a location or presiding officer change."*
Without public disclosure there cannot be true transparency, accountability or trust. I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely, Mark Parker
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:00 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com; Robert Guerra; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
Danny, my understanding was that there was general belief that the proposed RAA amendments were woefully inadequate and incomplete, but that in their own right, they would be useful. Since your 2nd questions focuses on finding out why the Board has not already taken the unilateral paths that you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I would assume that you support this position.
The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our current one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium.
If you or others feel that this is not a reasonable position to take, please provide specific guidance.
Alan
At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
As I, and doubtless others, have no idea what position the ALAC has adopted with respect to the RAA amendments, could we trouble you to articulate the official position, and the specific actions that the ALAC will support in the GNSO?
Many of us have major issues with a lot of the amendments and we don't want to see these put through on a blanket basis. It's bad enough that Staff is in bed with the registrars; we don't need to have the ALAC pushing an ill-considered program that gives the registrars everything that they want while the views of the rest of the community are routinely ignored.
Danny
--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" <lists@privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe@consumer.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 AM Although not answering any of Danny's questions (but acknowledging where were are today with the RAA amendments being punted to the GNSO), I do note that as ALAC Liaison, I am taking what I hope will be successful action to fast-path the first round of RAA amendments through the GNSO and forwarded to the Board for quick approval.
Alan
At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Dear North American reps to the ALAC:
The entire point of having a RALO is so that grassroots input may be brought to the attention of the ALAC. There were several items that I raised that have not made it onto the ALAC Agenda for tomorrow's meeting:
1. the failure to inaugurate a comprehensive review of registrar accreditation processes 2. a request for a formal explanation from ICANN Staff as to why (1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause in the RAA may not be pursued and (2) why an updated RAA agreement may not be substituted. As both of these options are permitted by contract, we need to know why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course of action. 3. a response to users that have posted comments to the RAA-WG.
As reps for the NARALO you have a duty to raise the issues that have been brought forth by the membership and to place these issues on the agenda if they merit discussion, otherwise there is no point whatsoever in having these RALO structures or an ALAC.
see my orginal comments at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org/2008q4/004938.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org/2008q4/004939.html
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg e-lists.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.