April 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS for RAA Drafting Team
by Glen de Saint Géry April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

Dear All, In response to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items the Council formed a drafting team to recommend how to proceed on the two tasks: 1) how to go about drafting a charter of registrant rights; 2) how to form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team (DT) will have 30 days from Board approval. The mailing list address is Gnso-raa-dt(a)icann.org And the public archives are http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-dt/ Please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you would like to be subscribed to the drafting team. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

6 7

Carlos Souza - Absent voting II
by Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

* On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: green-7

1 0

Carlos Souza - Absent voting I
by Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza April 18, 2009

April 18, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [X] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: green-7

1 0

Re: [council] CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS for RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

This note is a bit confusing partially because it uses the term "drafting team" in two different contexts. My understanding is that the DT being formed here is supposed to report back in about 2 weeks, in time for the next Council meeting. One of the tasks is to provide guidance on how to form a group (referred to as a DT here, but I do not recall specifying that) for further RAA amendments. The reference to 30 days is to how long Council and ALAC have to put in place the process. Is that correct?? Alan At 16/04/2009 04:57 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >Dear All, > >In response to the Registrar Accreditation >Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items the Council >formed a drafting team to recommend how to proceed on the two tasks: >1) how to go about drafting a charter of registrant rights; >2) how to form a Drafting Team to discuss >further amendments to the RAA and to identify >those on which further action may be desirable. > >The Drafting Team (DT) will have 30 days from Board approval. > >The mailing list address is >Gnso-raa-dt(a)icann.org >And the public archives are >http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-dt/ > >Please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you >would like to be subscribed to the drafting team. > >Let me know if you have any questions. >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Avri and Allan, The intended friendly amendment to PEDNR I am asking for is to replace the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section to the following: "to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: (i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and (iii) that it should specifically consider the following questions:" Reason: We just approved a set of amendments to the RAA and we have a group forming to discuss further changes to the RAA. For the RrC, it seems onerous to include the potential for RAA changs in every PDP that gets initiated and that's what the original motion portends. Item (ii) in the above amendmended paragraph uses language straight out of the recommendations in the Issues report. Thanks for considering it. Tim

2 1

GNSO Council absentee ballot 2 - Ute Decker
by Ute Decker (LCA) April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

* On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: pink-2

1 0

GNSO Council absentee ballot I - Ute Decker
by Ute Decker (LCA) April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

* On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: pink-2

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Not in the terms of the document that is to be created as a result of the first part of the motion. Alan At 17/04/2009 10:11 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >Would the alternative term 'statement of work (SoW)' be a better choice >than 'charter'? > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard > > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:02 AM > > To: 'GNSO Council' > > Subject: [council] RAA Drafting Team > > > > > > And while on Charters - we may be suffering from the US and > > UK being "two nations divided by a common language" syndrome. > > > > Charter means to my OED "a grant of rights by the sovereign > > or other body". > > Another on-line definition follows. > > Philip > > ---------------------- > > > > Charter > > noun > > > > a franchise or written grant of specified rights made > > by a government or ruler to a person, corporation, etc. > > a document setting forth the aims and principles of a > > united group, as of nations > > the constitution of a city, setting forth its > > governmental organization and powers > > > > OR > > a document by which a society authorizes the > > organization of a local chapter or lodge > > a special privilege or exemption > > an instrument, esp. a deed > > > > Etymology: ME chartre < OFr < L chartula, dim. of charta: see > > card <http://www.yourdictionary.com/card> > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Tim Ruiz April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Right. We fully understand that the Registrant Rights/Responsibilities Charter is a dynamic document. I think we can get to an initial postable version *relatively* quick. As discussions continue and more contentious issues are resolved it can be updated as necessary. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 9:06 am To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Tim, I fully support this process as now more clearly stated. I just don't want to set unreasonable expectations about what will be in the charter at day one, from what we hope to build in the longer term process. If I understood the motion, it called upon us to deliver a draft charter by July 31, AND a methodology/plan for going forward with the longer term process, also by that same date. Alan At 17/04/2009 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or >deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely >with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further >discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes >sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if >serially works better that's fine too. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am >To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I >could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were >implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15: > >3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that >ICANN has >published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and >responsibilities, and the >content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, >Registrar shall >provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain >name registration >or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as >clearly as its links >to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN >Consensus Policies. > >This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his >point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for >everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that >we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with >Bill that the name needs to stay). > >Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and >ALAC will be. > >I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the >scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion >passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA >amendments" section. > >Alan > > >At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote: > > Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and >make a proposal that >may save us all a lot of time. > >Background >The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. > >Question >What is the best way to do this ? > >Proposal >1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING registrants' >rights including (and >separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise). >2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that >registrants want (mostly a >Users exercise). >3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these >additional rights and >voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint >users / suppliers >exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. >4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward >to be implemented by >RAA changes. > >That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I >said on the call, and >from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. >The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of >a "charter of >rights." >As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology. > > >Philip

1 0

RE: [council] RAA Drafting Team
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Tim, I fully support this process as now more clearly stated. I just don't want to set unreasonable expectations about what will be in the charter at day one, from what we hope to build in the longer term process. If I understood the motion, it called upon us to deliver a draft charter by July 31, AND a methodology/plan for going forward with the longer term process, also by that same date. Alan At 17/04/2009 09:52 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >Alan, > >I the Charter as referenced in 3.15 could be the work product or >deliverable of Philip's item 1. Of course, registrars would work closely >with the user community in finalizing that. But since the further >discussions on RAA amendments is also on our plate, Philip's 2-4 makes >sense. With sufficient resources both could be pursued in tandem. But if >serially works better that's fine too. > >Tim > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] RAA Drafting Team >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am >To: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >I need to leave for the day in a few minutes, so this will be brief. I >could likely support an initiative like this. But I thought that we were >implementing what was referred to in the new RAA 3.15: > >3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that >ICANN has >published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and >responsibilities, and the >content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, >Registrar shall >provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain >name registration >or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as >clearly as its links >to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN >Consensus Policies. > >This is far less ambitious than what Philip has described. Also, his >point 2 may create a set of expectations (that is, asking users for >everything that they would like to see in the RAA to satisfy them) that >we will not likely meet in the creation of a Charter (and I agree with >Bill that the name needs to stay). > >Of course, the more we can get into this charter, the more pleased I and >ALAC will be. > >I agree that it is important to quickly come to an agreement on the >scope of what we are doing under the "charter" section of the motion >passed by Council, and what really belongs in the "future RAA >amendments" section. > >Alan > > >At 17/04/2009 04:32 AM, you wrote: > > Further to my comments on the call yesterday allow me to clarify and >make a proposal that >may save us all a lot of time. > >Background >The BC supports a consideration of further RAA changes. > >Question >What is the best way to do this ? > >Proposal >1. First, do fact finding and create a list of EXISTING registrants' >rights including (and >separating out) voluntary best practice (mostly a Registrars exercise). >2. Create a second list of ADDITIONAL registrants' rights that >registrants want (mostly a >Users exercise). >3. Create a group to study the two lists and determine which of these >additional rights and >voluntary best practice CAN be implemented with new RAA changes (a joint >users / suppliers >exercise) ie POSSIBLE even if some opinions say UNDESIRABLE. >4. Then, NEGOTIATE on which of these additional rights will go forward >to be implemented by >RAA changes. > >That may be in the minds of those that drafted the RAA motion but as I >said on the call, and >from what I heard on the call, I detected a confusion in approach. >The key is to avoid negotiating too early or arguing over the content of >a "charter of >rights." >As said on the call I would strongly recommend changing the terminology. > > >Philip

1 0