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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim:
The plan is to identify the issues with community input and then proceed as
a single group to deal with them all best as we can.

Like you and for similar reasons, I'm hard-pressed to see the need for
creating subgroups to address. Afterall, I want to learn..and you learn from
the crosstalk!

Carlton


On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
>