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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The third "issue" noted below is inaccurate and needs to be toned down:
no registrar is or has been "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 no such approved language yet exists.  Note RAA
3.15:


3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that
ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant
rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is
developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a
link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name
registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders
at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required
to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies.


As the registrant rights and responsibilities language has not yet been
approved via the bottom-up, consensus driven policy development process,
it is inaccurate (if not argumentative) to claim that registrars are in
violation of the RAA.  I suggest dropping this sentence completely.  In
the alternative, modify it to express the community's desire to see the
Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities document formally accepted,
posted by ICANN, and publicized by accredited registrars.

Regards, P


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Beau Brendler
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:05 AM
To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Cc: Margie Milam; gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rrc-a] Draft to Response to Public Comments and
Finalization of Report


yes, good point. I agree


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 11, 2010 8:04 PM
>To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx"
<gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rrc-a] Draft to Response to Public Comments and
Finalization of Report
>
>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
>