<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session
- To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session
- From: "Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:55:14 -0700
Thanks Steve.
For slides 7-9, no worries.
For the process slide, I think I would change "many" to "several" but I'll
leave that at your discretion as chair.
Mason
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Mason Cole; Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's
Session
Thanks for these comments Mason.
The titles for slides 7, 8 and 9 ("High Priority Amendment Topics," "Medium
Priority Amendment Topics") track our report so I would leave them as is.
Perhaps your process concern should be addressed by changing the first line of
the process slide to read:
Agreement on many process features, including periodic reports (with text) from
negotiations.
I am OK with the other changes (would defer to subteam A members re slides 4
and 5).
Steve
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mason Cole
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:44 AM
To: Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's
Session
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
_______________
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|