Evan... I had to bow out of the most recent RAA meeting because of a work conflict that sprang up at the last moment. However, I did have a brief, focused phone conversation with Heidi and Michele earlier in the day, to discuss the agenda. Nowhere was it brought up during that discussion that the "aspirational document" was now out of scope. Further, the "aspirational document" was in the stated scope of Group A in more than one update I have sent to the GNSO. So, a) No one has the authority to simply "rule it out" and b) as co-chair of the group, I didn't agree to any such thing. I haven't spoken to Michele since the day of the meeting, but I would assume there is some miscommunication here. However, what would be great would be that someone other than you, me, Cheryl or the "usual suspects" actually contribute to this process. It would be nice to hear from someone on LACRALO on this topic. It would be great to hear from someone on AFRALO. Or EURALO, for that matter. The more participants we can get from diverse regions to bring forward their aspirations, the more seriously the ICANN community will have to take the process. Beau -----Original Message-----

From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Jan 23, 2010 9:27 AM To: ICANN At-Large list <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?

One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good.

So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_200...>" March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated.

The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its public.

When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiration... ).

There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff has provided a document of this nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_2010...> which Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_r...> chair Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer within the scope of the group.

So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside.

Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward.

What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than with registrars and registries, in its development.

Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away?

-- Evan Leibovitch _______________________________________________ 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