Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process
- To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process
- From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:37:10 +1100
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.
Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
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.
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
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
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.