Re: [gnso-raa-b] RAA processes

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I meant its decisions in regard to the recommendation from the RAA group.

a.

On 21 May 2010, at 19:02, Mason Cole wrote:

> 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.
> 
>