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

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve (and Mason)

First, thank you Steve for this response, which I strongly support,  
as well as with Cheryl's response to Mason's email.
Just to remind people, as the background to the public comment on the  
proposed consumer constituency for the GNSO states:
In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a series of  
recommendations on how to improve the GNSO's structures and  
operations. One of the significant drivers of those recommendations  
was an interest in maximizing participation in the GNSO and its  
policy development processes.
In other words, what the ICAN Board is saying is that GNSO processes   
have not been as open or participative as they should be and they  
must be opened up.  For this reason, the ALAC has given its strong  
support for the Consumer Constituency, so that there are genuine user  
organisational voices heard.  As everyone is coming to realise,  
domain names are an increasingly critical component of modern life -  
for businesses, for governments and individuals - and registrars have  
a critical role in ensuring fair and open practices in the allocation  
and handling of domain names - or not.  And increasingly, law  
enforcement agencies are realising that registrar practices can  
significantly contribute to a safer Internet - or not.
While I appreciate Mason's procedural point, the much larger issue is  
the criticality of all parties that are affected by Registrar  
practices participating in discussions on how registrars can better  
serve their customers and Internet users, as well as significantly  
contribute to a safer Internet.
Kind regards

Holly Raiche
Executive Director,
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mob: 0412 688 544
Ph: (02) 9436 2149

The Internet is For Everyone

On 27/03/2010, at 4:43 AM, Metalitz, Steven 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