RE: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If all of ICANN is contracted, it's interesting then that the GNSO has a
non-contracted house.

And please -- it would be a stretch to say the least that the RrSG would
"[inform] the GNSO that its management decisions and the bottom-up
process are irrelevant."  The GNSO is highly relevant -- in its role as
a policy body, developing bottom-up consensus policies.  Not as a
governor of contracts, which it is not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:51 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes



On 21 May 2010, at 18:38, Mason Cole wrote:

>  but ultimately with respect to the ICANN entity and its agreement
with registrars, it will be only the two contracted parties.

As I have explained, we are the contracted party ICANN.  

But in any case:

I expect the Registrar SG representatives will be informing the GNSO
that its management decisions and the bottom up process are irrelevant
because you have defined yourselves the ultimate decision makers in this
process.

I think this would be an interesting case for the AOC accountability and
transparency Review Team and I hope they take the case up in detail.

Thank you for the most interesting ultimatum.

a.