Re: [gnso-rrc-a] Draft to Response to Public Comments and Finalization of Report

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Beau

Good input

I'd suggest adding some wording to the effect that "we thank the members of the 
community who have taken the time and made the effort to share their opinions 
on these topics" and then go on to note the limited scope of the current group 
etc etc.,

I just think that it is important that we use the word "thank" at some point :)

Regards

Michele


On 12 Oct 2010, at 00:34, Beau Brendler wrote:

> well, that two weeks went by rather quickly.
> 
> I've pasted below what Margie wrote with my comments in brackets, then I have 
> just woven the two together.
> 
> ADDENDUM to Final Report:  SubTeam A Review of Public Comments
> SubTeam A has carefully reviewed the comments received in the public comment 
> forum on the Initial Report on the Proposals for Improvements to the 
> Registrar Accreditation 
> Agreementhttp://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-improvements2010
>     pertaining to the work of SubTeam A ,  and the summary prepared by ICANN 
> Staff posted at:  
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-improvements2010/msg00010.html.   Some of 
> these reflect important insights and perspectives that the Council should 
> consider.
> SubTeam A notes the following responses to several of the comments received:
>         With regard to the comments that expressed disappointment regarding 
> the proposed Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter, SubTeam A notes 
> that the scope of its work was limited by the Charter for the Drafting Team 
> and the constraints of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  
> 
> 
> 
> [These preceeding paragraphs seem more complicated than they need to be, and 
> sell us short a bit. How about: 
> 
> 
> 
> Reflected in the public comments, and in the reaction of several people in 
> the at-large community is a sense of disappointment that SubTeam A did not go 
> far enough in its work. Indeed some members of SubTeam A at first thought the 
> report was something of an exercise in stenography, or cutting and pasting 
> language from the RAA into the registrant rights document. However, as work 
> progressed three issues became clear: One, the scope of SubTeam A's work was 
> limited to the contents of the current RAA; two, no plain-English version of 
> the RAA actually existed, and obtaining one from ICANN staff required several 
> weeks of work. Three, timing had created a situation in which registrars were 
> in violation of the RAA for each passing day they did not have the current 
> language on registrant rights posted to their web sites.
> 
> As the process unfolded, members of the team concluded that proposed 
> improvements to the RAA would need to be consigned to an "Aspirational" 
> Charter, which should be a "living" document, open to additions. Several 
> attempts have been made, and will continue to be made, to solicit 
> cross-community input on these future improvements to the RAA. SubTeam A is 
> supportive of calls from INTA and others to further develop and redefine the 
> charter, and particularly, to develop a roadmap for how the content of the 
> Aspirational Charter will be evaluated and included in future versions of the 
> RAA.
> 
> SubTeam A therefore recommends the GNSO Council support and encourage 
> participation in cross-community activities underway with the At-Large 
> Community and with other groups that have formed since the Nairobi ICANN 
> meeting to address consumer and end-user issues within ICANN.
> 
> In a similar vein, several who submitted comments suggested revisions to the 
> principles described in the Aspirational Charter.  SubTeam A recommends a) 
> these comments be evaluated as part of any future work to be commenced on the 
> Aspirational Charter though the new, cross-community effort described above, 
> and b) that those who are interested should submit comments directly to the 
> charter's wiki page at {...}.
> 
> The team also reviewed comments from the Internet Commerce Association 
> suggesting elimination of language containing legal conclusions.  However, 
> after discussion, SubTeam A did not reach consensus for revising the 
> Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter in the manner suggested. 
> SubTeam A invites the Internet Commerce Association to engage in the 
> cross-community comment process as described, using the wiki.
> 
> 
> .................that's a combination of what Margie wrote and my additions.
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Margie Milam 
> Sent: Oct 11, 2010 5:22 PM 
> To: "gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx" 
> Subject: [gnso-rrc-a] Draft to Response to Public Comments and Finalization 
> of Report 
> 
> Dear All,
>  
> In an effort to conclude the work of SubTeam A,   I drafted the attached 
> Response based upon the RAA’s last telephone call on 27 Sept.   Since I did 
> not receive Beau Brendler’s recommended language as discussed on our call, 
> please note that Beau may have additional content to share with the SubTeam. 
>  
> Please review and revise the Draft Response as appropriate, and send your 
> comments to me by COB on Wednesday,  13 October.   I will then add it as an 
> exhibit to the Final Report and circulate the final draft for your review and 
> consideration.
>  
> Best Regards,
> 
> Margie
>  
> _____________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> _____________
>  

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845