Hi Alan I just replied to Olivier on this issue. My initial response is anger over the two years between when the RAA Subteam B held is many teleconferences to develop its recommendations and a document that does not much at all to progress what were identified two years ago as 'high priority' issues. My suggestions - made to Olivier and repeated here: Start with a comment (far milder than I'd like) about the 2 year delay in what were clearly identified by the GNSO group itself as high priority issues Do not comment on HOW each issue is addressed (RAA amendment/code) as there isn't time to gather a consolidated ALAC view on that but list the issues that must be addressed both ASAP and in a way that will require action Note the call for a separate look at whether freedom of speech issues are raised - saying that action on RAA recommendations (made 2 years ago) should not be stalled by yet another inquiry, and that those issues were recognised in the RAA report and in the WHOIS Review Team report Note that one of the critical issues for the RAA team was ALAC involvement and restate that, while the RAA is a contract, negotiations (and the outcomes) impact on the whole community and we should be involved. (the RAA paper does use the earlier ALAC quote on the issue ) Happy to work with whomever to come up with something Kind regards Holly Raiche h.raiche@internode.on.net On 14/12/2011, at 1:14 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

The Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments requested by the ICANN Board in Dakar has been published today.

A public comment forum has been opened until January 13, 2012 - <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm.

It perhaps goes without saying that it is vitally important that At-Large review this document and provide any relevant comments by the deadline. Given the holiday season, this may be difficult. My personal opinion is that this Issue Report will trigger a PDP that will certainly last well over a year and perhaps much longer, as the issues may well be contentious. As such, allowing a few more weeks for comments may well have resulted in a better PDP without any meaningful extension in the process duration. But 1 month is what was decided.

Alan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)