[RAA-WG] Comments on the comments

[Vittorio Bertola]

All,

here is some feedback on the comments provided by several people.

About the beneficiaries of the contract, that's something we should add. 
Fine also with strengthening the request for registrant protection in 
the principles section.

Agree on acknowledging and commending current work on registry escrow 
and similar programs. In fact, please feel free to point out any place 
in the document where we ask for something that is already existing - I 
did my best to check, but certainly I may have missed something.

On the various comments on 3.3.*, the Whois provisions of the RAA are 
subject to a separate (quite controversial) policy making process, so 
they will not be amended through this process - proposing specific 
language for them will not really fly. However, nothing prevents us from 
adding a "whois" section as an additional issue, and stating our general 
principles and proposals about registrant data protection. In any case, 
I encourage anyone who is interested to join the GNSO Whois working 
group, even if it has basically finished its work.

On the comment on 3.7.10-12, you are right, but in any case it is in the 
interest of the registrar to add those clauses to their contract with 
the registrant, so they already do so - there is no need to make it 
compulsory.

On the should/could etc, most of what we propose is under the form of a 
request to ICANN, rather than of detailed contractual language, and I 
found it more courteous to say that "ICANN should..." rather than "ICANN 
must...". Of course contractual languages should (must) say "must"... 
isn't that clear enough?

Thanks,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------