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@mcgill.ca> Date: Fri, April 17, 2009 8:36 am To: GNSO Council <council@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