RE: [bc-gnso] Kieren's summary of the status of RAA discussions

["Baskin, James F (Jim)" <james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey - Thanks for the URI.

Kieren's analysis on the RAA negotiations appears, sadly, right on target.  
Relating to the BC discussions on the topic, his paragraph on the PDP option 
explains exactly why we should be concerned:

"ICANN's formal policy development process (PDP) is supposed to be where big 
policy issues are decided, and registrars have been arguing for some time that 
this is the best and most effective route to revise the RAA. The reality 
however is that due to the shoddy restructuring of ICANN's policy body, the 
Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its main Council, that there 
is currently very little confidence in the process. Despite planned revisions 
to the PDP process, the reality remains that registrars are effectively able to 
veto any changes - and have done so repeatedly. On top of that, there is 
significantly bad blood created over the past three years due to manipulations 
of the process, especially surrounding the RAA. It may be the most appropriate 
route, but it is unlikely to be the most smooth of effective.
Likelihood of happening: Medium to High
Likely effectiveness: Low to Medium"

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mike O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:18 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] Kieren's summary of the status of RAA discussions


the topic came up on the Monday call -- Kieren just published his view here;

http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/07/raa-talks-what-now

mikey


- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)