Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe we should take a page from the Geo-Regions WG; we developed a charter
- it framed the work plan and outcomes - had it approved by the Board then
once that was done, began the substantive work by agreeing the process and
working the process agreed.

All in one group of people.

Carlton

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> If the charter work is going to include debates over interpretation of
> the RAA and consensus policies, then perhaps. IMHO, the charter work
> should not go there and if there are issues raised over interpretation
> the Staff GC should make the call, not the RAA-WG, the ALAC, or the
> Council.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 6:39 pm
> To: <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> We would go faster taking an integrated approach with one group of
> people,
> rather than two tracks with two different groups addressing similar if
> not
> identical issues.
>
> -Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:55 PM
> To: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
>
>
> So when in 2011 do you plan to have it done?
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 5:34 pm
> To: <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Any charter based on existing rights and responsibilities should include
> those that the RAA-WG, ALAC and Council decide they should include. The
> so-called "wish list" is mostly aiming to clarify existing rights and
> responsibilities, which have been misinterpreted, ignored and/or abused.
> It
> would be shortsighted and indeed impossible to agree to text of a
> charter
> documenting them, before we have clarified what they are.
>
> -Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: Alan Greenberg
> Cc: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
>
>
> Alan, that is why these efforts should be separate. Creating a postable
> charter based on existing rights/responsibilities could be a relatively
> quick endeavor. Discussions of *wish lists* is another matter entirely.
>
> The discussion on changes to the RAA that various parties would like to
> see
> should be an effort of its own. If there is a new registrant right or
> responsibility someone would like to see, or one that someone would like
> to
> change, it should be brought up in the RAA discussion group. But as I
> suggested, I think there should be a limited number of stakeholder
> *representatives* involved in this group who would bring such items to
> the
> table.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 3:10 pm
> To: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> I have some trouble understanding how we will arrive at the wish-list
> part
> of the charter development.
>
> Is this just going to be the registrant/users who develop it, or will
> this
> need to be done in conjunction with the registrars?
>
> If the latter, it sounds like it is replicating work that will need to
> be
> done by the future RAA working group (or whatever mechanism is used),
> and it
> also pre-supposes that the registrars are agreeing to such future rights
> in
> advance of the actual discussion/negotiation.
>
> Alan
>
>
>