Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For Final Review - Updated PEDNR Initial Report

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Siva,  My comments on your suggestions:
>
> - Regarding the 1st and 2nd survey. Although we will be looking at area
> where the results in the two surveys are different from each other, the
> intent was that the 2nd version replace the first.
>

But the report would be complete and unbiased if the responses of Survey 1
(with all additional comments) are included as part of this report, at least
as an annexure. What is the difficulty in that?


> - On the omission of the comments in the document, we will certainly be
> looking at the comments in detail in the WG
>
but I do not feel that, taken out of the context of the WG discussions, they
> will be either fully understandable or add a lot to the results.
>

That it 'does not add a lot to the results' is a subjective opinion.

>
> - On the NCSG or At-Large "negotiating" with registrars to alter the terms
> of their agreements with registrants, I do not believe that either group is
> empowered to do this
>

Why does at-Large or NCSG require a specific mandate to represent users?


> , and I would not want to put such a suggestion in writing without the
> clearance of ICANN legal Counsel.
>

If that is required, may be we can send out a communication to the legal
counsel to ask if this working group could have the permission to include
this suggestion?


> There are clear rules regarding what ICANN can direct
>

Is there a need for an ICANN directive here? What is suggested is that the
agreement between Registrants and Registrars need to be mutual and not one
sided and that at-Large / NCSG can represent users and look into the terms
of a typical contact. Why would you hesitate to convey this suggestion in
report?

Sivasubramanian M.


> (basically only those things that are within the limits of "consensus
> policy"). The overall terms in registration agreements are not within that
> scope (although limited parts are).
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 30/05/2010 04:47 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>
> Dear Marika
>
> I have made a few comments, included as notes in the attached documents.
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>