[gnso-rrc-a] Re: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's Session

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I mentioned  in a private email (which have gotten lost in the ether between 
my flights), Katitza Rodriguez, perviously of EPIC and now at EFF  (and also on 
the IGF MAG) but participating in her personal capacity will be in Brussels and 
is prepared to talk from the floor if need be, but will, I assume, gladly speak 
from the dais if invited.  I am more then willing to pass on an invitation if 
it comes to that.

a.

On 17 Jun 2010, at 17:41, Hammock, Statton wrote:

> Steve and Team B,
>  
> I have been thinking about Avri’s suggestion made during Monday’s RAA-Team B 
> call about having a “civil liberties” representative at the meeting to 
> respond to comments from the law enforcement community.
>  
> The more I thought about it, the more it sounds like a good suggestion and 
> would make for very informative and useful dialogue.  Not sure whether anyone 
> participating in the meeting in Brussels could step in and represent the 
> “civil liberties” (e.g. a privacy advocate) viewpoint, but I think it is 
> worth exploring. Any ideas on who we might ask?
>  
> Statton  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:40 AM
> To: Mason Cole; Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's 
> Session
>  
> Thanks for these comments Mason. 
>  
>  The titles for slides 7, 8 and 9 ("High Priority Amendment Topics," "Medium 
> Priority Amendment Topics") track our report so I would leave them as is. 
>  
> Perhaps your process concern should be addressed by changing the first line 
> of the process slide to read:  
>  
> Agreement on many process features, including periodic reports (with text) 
> from negotiations.  
>  
> I am OK with the other changes (would defer to subteam A members re slides 4 
> and 5).  
>  
> Steve  
> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mason Cole
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:44 AM
> To: Margie Milam; gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's 
> Session
> 
> Margie –
>  
> Here are my contributions to the slides:
>  
> Slide 1
> We should change “Improvements” to “Amendments.”  Language should be neutral.
>  
> Slide 4
> This language:
> GNSO conditional approval of the 2009 form RAA, subject to further analysis
> …suggests the GNSO gave approval that could be taken back or could expire, 
> etc., if certain future conditions aren’t met.  The GNSO approved the 2009 
> RAA.  I would suggest:
> GNSO approved 2009 form RAA with agreement in the community that the RAA be 
> further analyzed.
>  
> Slide 5
> I would request these changes:
>  
> 2009 RAA: Registrars to link to a web page describing existing rights 
> available to and responsibilities of Registrants (§ 3.15)
>  
> Only Inventories current provisions of the 2009 RAA relating to registrants
> 
> Simplified language adopted provided, based on Non-Lawyers Guide to the RAA 
> developed by Staff
>  
> At-Large Community produced an “Aspirational Charter” describing rights that 
> it believes should be afforded to registrants [de-emphasize “should be”]
>  
> Slide 6
> Has the ALAC discussed any aspirational responsibilities?  If so, they should 
> be included.
>  
> Also – and this probably can’t be removed but is a point that will be 
> discussed – the third bullet on this list is inappropriate for inclusion on 
> the list itself, as price regulation cannot be considered part of ICANN’s 
> authority.
>  
> Slide 7
> Change slide title to:
> List of topics to be considered by GNSO
>  
> Slide 9
> Change slide title to:
> List of topics to be considered by GNSO
>  
> Steve’s requested process slide
> Edits as follows:
>  
> Agreement that there must be periodic reports from negotiations, including 
> text. 
>  
> Strong Support:  Include observers in negotiations (representing interests of 
> affected non-parties)
>  
> Substantial Opposition:  Only registrars and ICANN staff in negotiations Do 
> not have observers in negotiations but provide regular reports
>  
> Some Subteam Members:  Third parties should be full participants in 
> negotiations
>  
> …Also, this is focused primarily on who’s in the room.  If a discussion of 
> process is included, it should be more comprehensive to the process.  The 
> registrars have proposed these next steps:
>  
> 1. Full list goes to Staff.
> 2. Further weeding out of issues that fall under consensus policy (if
> any).
> 3. Negotions begin between Staff and the Registrars (as a whole, not
> individually).
> 4. As some agreement is reached on various items, they are posted for
> public comment and feedback. The GNSO may wish to specifically form a DT
> to review them and develop a response.
> 5. Staff and Registrars review comments and continue negotiations and
> repeat step 4 as necessary.
> 6. Final draft of new RAA goes to public comment.
> 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers comments and votes on approval of
> the RAA.
> 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
> 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to Staff and Registrars with
> appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.
>  
>  
> From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:38 PM
> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Draft Presentation on Initial Report for Monday's 
> Session
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find attached for your review draft slides  for Monday’s presentation 
> on the RAA Initial Report.
>  
> Please provide your comments or revisions by COB on this Thursday,  17 June 
> 2010.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Margie
>  
> _______________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> _______________