SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how I read your note was apparently unfounded... As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once decided). To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc@snapnames.com> wrote:
Steve and Cheryl –
I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for some months now, *already is* being informed by end-user and consumer input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of the community’s points of view.
That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, just as was the case in the last round of negotiations.
Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as was the process in the last round.
I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that point in the subteam meeting in Seoul.
Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so.
I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused.
Regards,
Mason
------------------------------
*From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Cc:* Mason Cole; david.olive@icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; gnso-raa-b@icann.org; ALAC Working List *Subject:* Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process
Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our attention) from Mason, Steve...
Which unsurprisingly has my full support...
What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are leaders in this area.
Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora.
Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com> wrote:
Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG").
Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of course I would be glad to stand corrected.
While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns.
Steve Metalitz
------------------------------
*From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Cc:* david.olive@icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole *Subject:* RAA process
Steve –
I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this process, and your team is currently focused on task 1.
However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).”
I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in negotiations.
Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position.
Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so.
Regards,
Mason