RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margie -

 

Here are my contributions to the slides:

 

Slide 1

We should change "Improvements" to "Amendments."  Language should be neutral.

 

Slide 4

This language:

GNSO conditional approval of the 2009 form RAA, subject to further analysis

...suggests the GNSO gave approval that could be taken back or could expire, 
etc., if certain future conditions aren't met.  The GNSO approved the 2009 RAA. 
 I would suggest:

GNSO approved 2009 form RAA with agreement in the community that the RAA be 
further analyzed.

 

Slide 5

I would request these changes:

 

2009 RAA: Registrars to link to a web page describing existing rights available 
to and responsibilities of Registrants (§ 3.15)

 

Only Inventories current provisions of the 2009 RAA relating to registrants

Simplified language adopted provided, based on Non-Lawyers Guide to the RAA 
developed by Staff

 

At-Large Community produced an "Aspirational Charter" describing rights that it 
believes should be afforded to registrants [de-emphasize "should be"]

 

Slide 6

Has the ALAC discussed any aspirational responsibilities?  If so, they should 
be included.

 

Also - and this probably can't be removed but is a point that will be discussed 
- the third bullet on this list is inappropriate for inclusion on the list 
itself, as price regulation cannot be considered part of ICANN's authority.

 

Slide 7

Change slide title to:

List of topics to be considered by GNSO

 

Slide 9

Change slide title to:

List of topics to be considered by GNSO

 

Steve's requested process slide

Edits as follows:

 

Agreement that there must be periodic reports from negotiations, including 
text. 

 

Strong Support:  Include observers in negotiations (representing interests of 
affected non-parties)

 

Substantial Opposition:  Only registrars and ICANN staff in negotiations Do not 
have observers in negotiations but provide regular reports

 

Some Subteam Members:  Third parties should be full participants in negotiations

 

...Also, this is focused primarily on who's in the room.  If a discussion of 
process is included, it should be more comprehensive to the process.  The 
registrars have proposed these next steps:

 

1. Full list goes to Staff.

2. Further weeding out of issues that fall under consensus policy (if

any).

3. Negotions begin between Staff and the Registrars (as a whole, not

individually).

4. As some agreement is reached on various items, they are posted for

public comment and feedback. The GNSO may wish to specifically form a DT

to review them and develop a response.

5. Staff and Registrars review comments and continue negotiations and

repeat step 4 as necessary.

6. Final draft of new RAA goes to public comment.

7. GNSO Council reviews and considers comments and votes on approval of

the RAA.

8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.

9. If Council does not approve, goes back to Staff and Registrars with

appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.

 

 

From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:38 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session

 

Dear All,

 

Please find attached for your review draft slides  for Monday's presentation on 
the RAA Initial Report.

 

Please provide your comments or revisions by COB on this Thursday,  17 June 
2010.

 

Best regards,

 

Margie 

 

_______________

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

_______________