Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our
attention)  from Mason, Steve...

Which unsurprisingly has my full support...

What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should
any form of Industry best practice* model(s)  or Industry Codes developed
(and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is
mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples
views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different
GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the
gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and
deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without
complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end
user and consumer input*!  Certainly that is NOT the basis for the
successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and
Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are
leaders in this area.

Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES
need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora.

Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for
a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin.


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>