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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carlton, how are they proceeding? Are they doing all work within a
single WG, or creating various sub-groups to deal with each set of
issues? Either way, the issues being addressed are unquestionably
related.

I'd be okay with two sub-groups. The main problem as I see it is
insisting that the charter work and the RAA amendment work are related
and pursuing them that way. 

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 04, 2009 10:52 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx

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