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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

fyi: http://www.eff.org/about/staff/katitza-rodriguez


On 18 Jun 2010, at 09:37, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 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
>> _______________
> 
>