[gnso-raa-b] Final Revisions to the Final RAA Report

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I have uploaded to the WIKI the Final Revisions to the Final Report on 
Improvements to the RAA.   Please note that due to the size of the document,  
it is too large to be circulated by email.  The redlining reflects changes from 
the Initial Report.   The document is posted at: 
https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?joint_alac_gnso_wg_and_at_large_workspace_on_raa_related
  for your review and consideration.

This document incorporates the changes from SubTeam A following review of the 
Public Comments.    SubTeam A's response to the Public Comments is now attached 
as Annex J.   However, for ease of review,  I have provided the content from 
Annex J below.   Please note that the highlighted section is my attempt to 
address the concerns raised by Paul Diaz.

Please send me any final comments by COB on Friday, October 15.   I will then 
proof and format the document and will publish the Final Report on Monday 18 
October, 2010.

Best Regards,

Margie Milam

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________




Annex J

SubTeam A Review of Public Comments Received
SubTeam A has carefully reviewed the comments received in the public comment 
forum on the Initial Report on the Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-improvements2010
    pertaining to the work of SubTeam A ,  and the summary prepared by ICANN 
Staff posted at:  
http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-improvements2010/msg00010.html.    The SubTeam 
A thanks the members of the community who have taken the time and made the 
effort to share their opinions on these topics.  Some of these reflect 
important insights and perspectives that the Council should consider.

Reflected in the public comments, and in the reaction of several people in the 
at-large community is a sense of disappointment that SubTeam A did not go far 
enough in its work. Indeed some members of SubTeam A at first thought the 
report was something of an exercise in stenography, or cutting and pasting 
language from the RAA into the registrant rights document. However, as work 
progressed three issues became clear: One, the scope of SubTeam A's work was 
limited to the contents of the current RAA; two, no plain-English version of 
the RAA actually existed, and obtaining one from ICANN staff required several 
weeks of work. Three, timing had created a situation in which registrars did 
not have the current language on registrant rights posted to their web sites as 
was contemplated by the 2009 version of the RAA.

As the process unfolded, members of the team concluded that proposed 
improvements to the RAA would need to be consigned to an "Aspirational" 
Charter, which should be a "living" document, open to additions. Several 
attempts have been made, and will continue to be made, to solicit 
cross-community input on these future improvements to the RAA. SubTeam A is 
supportive of calls from INTA and others to further develop and redefine the 
charter, and particularly, to develop a roadmap for how the content of the 
Aspirational Charter will be evaluated and included in future versions of the 
RAA.

SubTeam A therefore recommends the GNSO Council support and encourage 
participation in cross-community activities underway with the At-Large 
Community and with other groups that have formed since the Nairobi ICANN 
meeting to address consumer and end-user issues within ICANN.

In a similar vein, several who submitted comments suggested revisions to the 
principles described in the Aspirational Charter.  SubTeam A recommends a) 
these comments be evaluated as part of any future work to be commenced on the 
Aspirational Charter though the new, cross-community effort described above, 
and b) that those who are interested should submit comments directly to the 
charter's wiki page at 
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/raa+wg+a+workspace+for+aspirational+registrant+rights.

The team also reviewed comments from the Internet Commerce Association 
suggesting elimination of language containing legal conclusions.  However, 
after discussion, SubTeam A did not reach consensus for revising the Registrant 
Rights and Responsibilities Charter in the manner suggested. SubTeam A invites 
the Internet Commerce Association to engage in the cross-community comment 
process as described, using the wiki.