RE: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michele,

Happy to clarify.  It is my personal opinion as a member of the WG.  

But once this goes out for Constituency statements, I believe it will be a
consensus BC position.  Many members of the BC have complained about the
bilateral negotiations between a group of registrars and ICANN which
resulted in the first round of amendments, which the BC believed were
insufficient to address known harms to users of the DNS.  Many members were
concerned with that bilateral process, as well as with the substantive
output from those bilateral negotiations.  Thus we only supported the last
round of amendments on condition that community negotiations would take
place as to further changes, ala this WG.

Thanks,
Mike 

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:12 AM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V



On 19 May 2010, at 20:07, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 
> I agree with Avri on this point, and believe it is consistent with BC
> positions re the RAA.

Mike

So is this a BC position or your personal position?

If it is your personal position why are you referencing the BC? 

Are you speaking as a member of the BC or as the BC as a whole?

Please clarify

Regards

Michele


> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you.  Can I suggest a minor change:
> 
>> One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating
> that representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users
and
> other affected parties should be full participants in the negotiation.   
> 
> 
> 
> s/parties/ICANN Stakeholders/
> 
> 
> One SubTeam member declined to support either proposed process, stating
that
> representatives of registrants, commercial and non-commercial users and
> other affected ICANN Stakeholders should be full participants in the
> negotiation.   
> 
> And of course if anyone else agrees (which I would expect from the
> discussion in the meeting) then perhaps 'one' can be upped to 'two' 'a
few'
> 'several' ...
> 
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 May 2010, at 13:45, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for this Avri.  Let me say that I agree that this issue will be
>> decided in the GNSO council and nothing in the report limits the options
>> of anyone in the council deliberations.  
>> 
>> In the attached I have inserted a sentence meant to reflect your view
>> stated below.  Of course you should feel free to edit or prepare your
>> own.  If you have other ideas about how this should be reflected in our
>> report, please advise.  
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:44 PM
>> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] Revised draft of Section V 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I know that I have not participated in this group, only monitored its
>> mailing list.  And while there was nothing much controversial in parts
>> 1-4, iI find that both options list in 5 are unsatisfactory.
>> 
>> We will be discussing this in the NCSG, but it will be my recommendation
>> that neither of these options be supported in council but that the issue
>> be discussed further to find a solution that includes greater inclusion
>> in the discussion by the ICANN Stakeholders - especially the registrants
>> but also both commercial and non commercial users.  The idea that even
>> in the majority recommendation, the observers can be excluded is
>> unacceptable.  While I was originally personally willing to  accept the
>> status of Observer for non Registrar participants, by which I mean full
>> transparency and full participation except for decision making,  after
>> thinking further of the conditions being imposed and re-listening to
>> some of the contribution made at yesterday's meeting, I have come to
>> personally accept the position that full dialogue must be insisted upon.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 May 2010, at 11:39, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>> 
>>> SubTeam B participants,
>>> Hi,
>>> Following up on yesterday's call, attached please find a proposed
>> revision of section V of the Initial Draft Report.  It lays out the two
>> options for "next steps," and includes a draft of a brief supporting
>> statement for the option that commands Strong Support within the
>> SubTeam.  I understand that one of the registrar representatives
>> (perhaps Statton?) will draft a statement of similar length for the
>> alternative approach.  Of course, your comments and edits on anything in
>> this document are welcomed.  Please circulated these as soon as
>> possible, and in any case by Thursday of this week, so that we can stay
>> on track for circulation of a "final" draft by staff no later than next
>> Monday.  Thanks. 
>>> 
>>> Steve Metalitz
>>> 
>>> <<Section V draft (2697426).DOC>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Section V draft (2697426).DOC>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Section V draft -2 (2697426-2).DOC>
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845