RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Re: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Drafting Team (DT) call on TUESDAY, June 09 at 1300 UTC.

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

For ready reference here are the operative resolutions from GNSO
Council:  

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments,
representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified
to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated
by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support
from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July
31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO
Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the
RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The
Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and
ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 1:15 PM
To: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-raa-dt] Re: Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
Drafting Team (DT) call on TUESDAY, June 09 at 1300 UTC.


Hi,

On 5 Jun 2009, several wrote:

> Forgive me if I am getting confused again, but is this about the
> discussion on further RAA amendments or about the work on the
> Registrants Rights Charter, or both? And what is the agenda?

> I am also confused Glen, I am not part of this group either, rather  
> I am
> subscribed in the Registrants rights charter group and not in the
> accreditation agreement team.

> Tim, Join the club.  I *think* that the group that Bill Drake is  
> calling the Registrants Rights DT and Glen is calling the RAA DT are  
> one and the same. They do seem to have a similar set of participants.
>
> If I remember correctly, Council decided to have one DT look at both  
> issues and decide how to proceed. How might include having a single  
> WG not two WGs. The issue is confused because the original Board  
> motion in Mexico said "convene two groups of representatives from  
> the GNSO Community within 30 days of Board approval" and my  
> recollection (but I can't find the document) was that the  
> "registrant rights WG was supposed to be a joint GNSO-ALAC WG  
> (whereas the RAA effort is a GNSO WG, presumably open to ALAC/ At- 
> Large members).
>
> As I stated in Council, I think the two efforts are different and  
> will have very different time-lines and so should be de-coupled, but  
> at the moment, I think we have a single DT which will consider how  
> to proceed.


Alan is pretty much correct.

The council decided to start out by creating one drafting team to  
create the motions and charters and whatever for the two efforts.

So this group is the one that will figure out  - from at least the  
GNSO perspective - though I hope from the GNSO/ALAC perspective -   
how  the work will be done.   The work consists of, at least,

- further, if any, RAA amendments
- documenting registrants rights

So this is to be the first meeting in which we try to figure out how  
we are going to proceed.  My view of the agenda:

- figure out who is going to coordinate this team, i will start out as  
interim on it until replaced.
- figure out how many groups we need
- figure out how the GNSO and ALAc are going to work together on this
- get volunteers to start working on charters and motions.

Given the partnership aspects of this and the complexity that comes  
out of the compromises contained in the RAA motions the Council  
approved, this Drafting Team is larger and more diverse then many, so  
it is somewhat more confusing.

Anyone who is only interested in the substantive issues and not the  
organizational issues of how we all get this done, can afford to skip  
this meeting.  But if you care about how the work will be structured,  
it is probably good to try and attend or at least listen to the  
recording

As for the name, it is just a place holder.  If people wish, I can add  
a 'what do we call this DT' item to the agenda, though i think it  
better to focus on the charters and names of the groups that will be  
developed.  If i had to suggest another name it would be Registrar and  
Registrant Issues DT.



a.


>
>