RE: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri. 

 

To this point:

 

My problem with your treatise is what I perceive to be a
misunderstanding about what ICANN is.  ICANN is the unity of the
corporate staff with the volunteer staff.  For the Registrars to
negotiate with ICANN, they must negotiate with all of ICANN and not just
part of ICANN.  The strict diremption of ICANN corporate from ICANN is a
whole, to my mind, not persuasive.

 

I'm sure "what is ICANN?" will be an interesting discussion, but it's
not the question before us and is separate from the fact that the
registrars' contract is with ICANN the corporate entity only.

 

Following your line of reasoning, the entire community should be
involved in all agreements between ICANN the entity and another party
(registries, consultants, contractors, researchers, etc.).  Applying the
"affected party" theory to that idea, that would presume third parties
were in the room while ICANN the entity was negotiating the agreement
between the Department of Commerce and Neustar on the contract for .US,
or between ICANN and another government regarding a ccTLD, or between
ICANN and Rod Beckstrom on his employment agreement, or between ICANN
and UDRP providers.  Were they?

 

At best, "negotiating with all of ICANN" is terribly impractical.
Certainly it is inappropriate.

 

To this point:

 

The Board that must approve any RAA contract can only be motivated by
the informed and involved input of the GNSO and the rest of the
community.  Unless the GNSO and the community are given their due as an
integral part of ICANN, I do not understand how the negotiations can be
anything by flawed. 

 

The months and months of input to date, if anything, are entirely
informative to anyone paying attention.  That's the purpose of it in the
first place.  The GNSO is a policy body with a policy role, as the ICANN
bylaws point out.

 

To this point:

 

Additionally the insistence by the Registrars in one venue of being
separate from the rest of ICANN and only willing to negotiate with ICANN
corporate, and in another of being an indispensable and integral part of
ICANN and of the Registry-Registrar equation is also very difficult to
understand or rationalize.   The Registrars are either one among peers
in their negotiation with the whole of ICANN, or they are something
separate to be viewed as other than a necessary part of ICANN.

 

Because a party to a contract is more involved with the negotiation of
its own contract does not mean that it shouldn't be an important part of
the policy process along with the rest of the community.  For example,
ICANN just negotiated a relationship with the ccTLD manager for Georgia
(http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25mar10-en.htm) -- the
Georgian ccTLD operator was the primary negotiator of that agreement as
a contracted party and now will be one among peers related to the rest
of the ccNSO issues.

 

Ultimately, I'm sure we can go back and forth as to why non-parties to a
contract feel entitled to a presence during the negotiation process, but
ultimately with respect to the ICANN entity and its agreement with
registrars, it will be only the two contracted parties.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:17 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes

 

 

 

On 21 May 2010, at 16:55, Mason Cole wrote:

 

> Finally, further to the current amendment effort, as I and our GNSO
councilors have stated any number of times, following the months-long
community consultation regarding possible RAA amendments, when it's time
to negotiate the actual legal terms of the amended RAA, registrars will
do so with staff of the ICANN corporate entity only.  I'm aware that
those not party to the contract feel entitled to a presence in the
negotiations on the basis of being an "affected" party, but that is
unpersuasive in the end.  

 

My problem with your treatise is what I perceive to be a
misunderstanding about what ICANN is.  ICANN is the unity of the
corporate staff with the volunteer staff.  For the Registrars to
negotiate with ICANN, they must negotiate with all of ICANN and not just
part of ICANN.  The strict diremption of ICANN corporate from ICANN is a
whole, to my mind, not persuasive.

 

The Board that must approve any RAA contract can only be motivated by
the informed and involved input of the GNSO and the rest of the
community.  Unless the GNSO and the community are given their due as an
integral part of ICANN, I do not understand how the negotiations can be
anything by flawed.  

 

Additionally the insistence by the Registrars in one venue of being
separate from the rest of ICANN and only willing to negotiate with ICANN
corporate, and in another of being an indispensable and integral part of
ICANN and of the Registry-Registrar equation is also very difficult to
understand or rationalize.   The Registrars are either one among peers
in their negotiation with the whole of ICANN, or they are something
separate to be viewed as other than a necessary part of ICANN.

 

a.