At 03/09/2009 11:18 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

The GNSO today approved the charter for the drafting team to be charged with: a) creating a registrants rights document; b) identifying topics to be considered in the next round of RAA amendments; c) proposing the next steps for address b).

There will be two sub-groups, one for a, and one for b+c. It is expected that there will be significant overlap and certainly communications between the two.

I don't have the exact wording of the motion and charter (there were some minor changes at the end), but will forward once I have it (probably tomorrow).

For those who have not been following the process, there was ALAC/At-Large in the debate over how to structure the drafting team(s) and in the wording of the charter.

I would hope that, while this is a GNSO initiative, that any right documents to come out of this also apply to ccTLDs. They should not get a free ride. I know that the CC registries sometimes think that they're above all the politics (and the policy), but I want to ensure that they are not exempted (and that they are not allowed to believe they might be exempt).

GNSO may not care about the applicability of registrant rights to ccTLDs, but we should.

- Evan

PS: I never did figure out... is the current status of .su a ccTLD or a gTLD?

Evan, we can care about how ccTLD registrars carry out their business, but it is outside of ICANN's jurisdiction. To the extent that ICANN's accredited registrars offer ccTLDs (and many do) and to the extent that they apply a single set of standards to the limit allowed by their registries, we may impact them in this process. To be clear, each ccTLD sets its own rules regarding its TLD and the rules that a registrar must follow. Unless the ccTLD requires it, their registrars need not be ICANN accredited. The ALAC/At-large could certainly come up with a set of standards and offer it to the ccTLDs as a sample of what we think is good, or a standard that will earn them an At-Large seal of approval, but that is all we could do. And I am pretty sure that there is a whole bunch of ccTLDs that would exceed our general standards from the start. Regarding .su, it is most definitely a ccTLD. Wikipedia is always a good place to start, even if not always the most authoritative source for controversial issues (as this is) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su. Alan