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

[Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think the sentence should be dropped completely.

It is not intended to be inflammatory.

It came, in fact, directly from Michele Neylon, who said it repeatedly (and 
effectively) as a prompt to get the group to get on with the show and not spend 
time debating the aspirational aspects of the charter.

Perhaps Michele could suggest some wording less feather-ruffling. But I would 
not agree to removing the sentence (or the notion, if nuanced) entirely.


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 12, 2010 8:43 AM
>To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
><michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-rrc-a@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [gnso-rrc-a] Draft to Response to Public Comments and 
>Finalization of Report
>
>
>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
>>
>
>
>