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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri, 

 

I think Katitza would be perfect and I think she should be invited to 
participate. 

 

Statton

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:01 AM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rrc-a] Re: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report 
for Monday's Session

 

 

fyi: http://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez

 

 

On 18 Jun 2010, at 09:37, Avri Doria wrote:

 

> 

> Hi,

> 

> As I mentioned  in a private email (which have gotten lost in the ether 
> between my flights), Katitza Rodriguez, perviously of EPIC and now at EFF  
> (and also on the IGF MAG) but participating in her personal capacity will be 
> in Brussels and is prepared to talk from the floor if need be, but will, I 
> assume, gladly speak from the dais if invited.  I am more then willing to 
> pass on an invitation if it comes to that.

> 

> a.

> 

> On 17 Jun 2010, at 17:41, Hammock, Statton wrote:

> 

>> Steve and Team B,

>> 

>> I have been thinking about Avri's suggestion made during Monday's RAA-Team B 
>> call about having a "civil liberties" representative at the meeting to 
>> respond to comments from the law enforcement community.

>> 

>> The more I thought about it, the more it sounds like a good suggestion and 
>> would make for very informative and useful dialogue.  Not sure whether 
>> anyone participating in the meeting in Brussels could step in and represent 
>> the "civil liberties" (e.g. a privacy advocate) viewpoint, but I think it is 
>> worth exploring. Any ideas on who we might ask?

>> 

>> Statton  

>> 

>> 

>> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven

>> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:40 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

>> _______________

> 

>