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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

That is not what we agreed to. Let's get a charter done sooner than
later, and roll the so-called *wish list* into the RAA amendments
discussion. I don't see a downside to that.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-dt] Charter of rights - "wish list"
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 03, 2009 5:24 pm
To: "gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Tim, I understand what you are saying, but that does not seem to be a 
universal position, as discussed at the very end of the meeting 
today. There is a perception that the "Charter of Rights" activity 
(not the RAA process for which Steve is drafting a charter) should 
include two components, the existing rights (based on the work that 
Margie did) and a "What rights should be document" (in line with the 
more traditional definition of a Charter of Rights). It is that 
latter document that I was referring to.

Alan

At 03/08/2009 05:52 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>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