[gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message
circulate to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as
"the WG").  
 
Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars
participating in  subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that
no one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of
amendments to the RAA.  If you can point me to any posting on our
extensive e-mail archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was
stated "many times", of course I would be glad to stand corrected.  
 
While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more
comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam
-- and it has not been so recommended yet --  would somehow be in "bad
faith" or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has
made with the registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this
topic within the subteam, in which of course those registrars who are
participating in the subteam would have every opportunity to express
their concerns.  
 
Steve Metalitz 
 
 
 

________________________________

From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: david.olive@xxxxxxxxx; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole
Subject: RAA process



Steve -

 

I'm contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG.  The
registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering
amendments to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3).  I understand it's still very
early in this process, and your team is currently focused on task 1.

 

However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal.
Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including
"representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG,
NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups)."

 

I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there
are only two parties to the RAA - registrars and ICANN, the formal
entity - and those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating
changes that cannot be made through the consensus process.  The
registrars in the WG have stated many times to the WG, and believed it
to be clearly understood, that there should be no expectation that the
group can anticipate involvement in negotiations.

 

Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars
agreed in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of
additional possible amendments.  We intend to hold up our end of that
agreement, and expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this
reasonable position.

 

Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG.  If I can follow
up in a way useful to the WG, I'm happy to do so.

 

Regards,

 

Mason