Re: "That said, can we get more specific information in here" Sorry, you can't. The registrars won't allow for any changes on anything. It's a completely one-sided process (which is why it makes no sense to support the current registrar motion on the RAA). --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Revised RAA amendment/motion To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 5:22 PM Not all of this is bad news.
Note item 3.16, page 14... Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address.
Glad to see this here. I think the registrars at minimum should be required to give as much information about themselves as registrants. That said, can we get more specific information in here: Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including location of corporate headquarters, a valid email staffed for responses and a mailing address.
Note that under 4.2, Topics for New and Revised Specifications and Policies, there is a reference to:
4.2.5, prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars...
Notice, also, 5.3, and following sections, pertaining to termination of agreement by ICANN, in which provisions are described for terminating contracts with registrars, including conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense....read on through item 5.3.7
Note that 5.7 appears to limit fines for bad behavior, however.
The no third party beneficiaries clause is 5.10.
________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:12 PM To: Alan Greenberg; At-Large Worldwide Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Revised RAA amendment/motion
All,
This is an attempt on the part of the registrars to push through a complete package with several objectionable elements. They seek to toss you a bone in order to get your support. Let's be honest about it -- the "no third-party beneficiaries clause" in the RAA makes it clear that there are no registrant rights. You are being sold damaged goods.
--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Revised RAA amendment/motion To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 4:07 PM Alan: Congrats for hanging in there with this matter.
If memory serves, what is proposed here has less elements - at least in the details where the devil resides - than originally posed but probably the most one could reasonably expect; Beau can confirm here.
Giving ALAC a 2nd crack at participating in developing a Registrant Bill of Rights is definitely in the At-Large best interests and gives some level of assurance that other issues not now included may still be negotiated and adopted.
I would recommend ALAC go with this.
Carlton
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
As you may remember, RAA amendment package that has been discussed needed to be approved by a 66% majority of the GNSO to allow the Board to put the changes in place.
For a variety of reasons, when the GNSO voted on this, it did not receive a sufficient majority. There has been a discussion of various next-step motions. The following motion has just been circulated to the GNSO Council. As you will see, it is a cooperative effort of several constituencies.
You will notice that a Registrant Bill of Rights, with a tight time-line, has a prominent place in this proposal, and the ALAC is explicitly included in the process.
Your comments are welcome before the Wednesday morning GNSO meeting when it will be discussed, and potentially voted on.
Alan
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:43:04 -0700
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Subject: [council] Revised RAA amendment/motion To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@rodenbaugh.com>
This is the revised amendment/motion drafted by a drafting team comprised of representatives from the NCUC, IPC, and RrC. We tried to address most of the concerns that have been raised. Let us know your thoughts.
Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and
Whereas,
The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments;
The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and
The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.
Resolved:
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd...
and recommends to the Board that they be
adopted at its meeting of March
6, 2009;
Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later then July 31; and
Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and identify those that the community believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009.
Tim
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org