[Registrants-rights] Suggestions for Informal meeting in Costa Rica -- what do you think?

Sun Mar 11 17:43:30 UTC 2012

Hi Beau,

At-Large staff would be happy to organize an informal meeting of the RRR WG in CR .There are a number of meeting rooms available on a sign-up basis. These rooms would not be able to provide interpretation or other services.

Could you please let us know a few dates/times that might work as well as the number of people you would expect to participate?  Staff will sign your WG up and let you know the details.

Kind regards,
Heidi

Heidi Ullrich
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647
Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649
Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler at earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:33 AM
To: registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; yrjo.lansipuro at isoc.fi; h.raiche at internode.on.net; cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com; Matt Ashtiani; carlton.samuels at gmail.com; langdonorr at gmail.com; admin at ttcsweb.org
Subject: Suggestions for Informal meeting in Costa Rica -- what do you think?

Greetings all.

I appreciate all the enthusiasm I'm hearing for this WG. Some of you asked if we could get together here in Costa Rica for an informal meeting.

Seems to me like a great idea. I'm all for it. And so, I have cc'd ICANN staff to see if they have any insight into scheduling and facilities. Heidi, Matt and colleagues, could we possibly have access to a meeting room sometime this week? Preferably toward the end of the week? If so, please let me know, and I will send out a meeting invite. If not, I'm sure we could set something up in one of the Ramada common areas, if staff could suggest a possible time in the week's schedule when there might be a possible "hole." Anybody have suggestions, ideas or preferences for day and date?

Thanks,

Beau
-----Original Message-----
From: Beau Brendler
Sent: Mar 11, 2012 1:26 PM
To: Alan Greenberg , registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>, yrjo.lansipuro at isoc.fi<mailto:yrjo.lansipuro at isoc.fi>, h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>, cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com<mailto:cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com>, matt.ashtiani at icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani at icann.org>, carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>, langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>, admin at ttcsweb.org<mailto:admin at ttcsweb.org>
Subject: aspirational vs. practical

Thanks, Alan.

I agree. I think one of the key objectives of this WG, which I was trying to articulate earlier today when someone asked about why we need lawyers, should be to move from aspirational language -- which is subject to pie-in-the-sky qualifiers -- to more airtight language. After all, I believe the RAA is written -- like a great deal of U.S. regulatory legislation, by the industry it's intended for -- and is therefore purposefully vague to the advantage of that industry.

Thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Mar 11, 2012 12:41 PM
>To: Beau Brendler , registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Registrants-rights] Live from Costa Rica: Kicking off the Registrants Rights Working Group
>
>Beau, thanks for this.
>
>I think that we need even more homework than what you outline. As one
>example which is near and dear to me (following my PEDNR experience):
>the list of Aspirational Registrant Rights includes "have ample
>opportunity to renew their existing domain(s) at the same rates as
>new domains". "ample" is about as subjective a term as can be
>imagined, and I have personally hear opinions (clearly not all of
>which I agree with) that it ranges from a few days to at least a
>year. I think we need clear thinking and open debate on such issues,
>looking at it not only from the position of what we want, but what is
>indeed practical.
>
>For those who are not familiar with the history, PEDNR went in with a
>hope of formalizing (and mandating) the de facto renewal period of
>30-45 days, and what we ended up with was FAR less. And I must admit
>that the user perspective within the WG was far from uniform.
>
>Alan
>
>At 11/03/2012 11:49 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
>>Greetings to all and thanks for signing up to participate in this
>>group. We've had a pretty good run of people signing up from the
>>previous RAA-WG list.
>>
>>It's also good to see some discussion already beginning on the list.
>>There is a point, however, I need to clarify: I co-chaired the last
>>group with Michele Neylon, and the way that group will differ from
>>this group is significant. That previous group had a specific
>>charter from the GNSO, which led to some of the confusion about
>>"aspirational statements" and such. The mission of that group was to
>>seek implementation of language that was already agreed on,
>>bascially, that needed to go into the RAA as of 2009. I agreed to
>>that approach because I believed it was the right thing to do.
>>
>>We face no such limits here. The mission of this group will be
>>relatively broad, involving an analysis of the current RAA and
>>supporting documents, in order to a) create a discussion about what
>>registrants' "rights" are needed and should be proposed for new
>>versions of the RAA and b) to set those new recommendations,
>>amendments, contract language, etc. on paper and do whatever is
>>necessary to drive it through the ICANN process.
>>
>>That means it will be necessary to do some homework:
>>
>>First, you will be able to find the latest version of the "layman's
>>terms" version of the RAA prepared by ICANN staff and legal that the
>>previous RAA group asked to be implemented. The "simplified" RAA is
>>in at least five languages.
>>
>>Next, I would like everybody to review the latest RAA negotiations
>>progress report, which includes substantial input from the law
>>enforcement community:
>>http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-negotiations-progress-report-01mar12-en.pdf
>>
>>Finally, I would like everyone to review the following document,
>>which the ICANN compliance department last week cited as the
>>currently functioning document "to assist ICANN-accredited
>>registrars in understanding their obligations under ICANN's
>>Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding the accuracy of
>>Whois data.":
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/advisory-10may02-en.htm
>>
>>Note that this document is 10 years old. I believe that the first
>>action of this working group should be an extensive review of this
>>document for currency both in language and in terms of compliance.
>>
>>So this is a lot to bite off and chew at once, so we will need to
>>schedule some standard working-group conference calls to begin our
>>work and discussion.
>>
>>That's it for the moment. I look forward to a successful working group.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Registrants-rights mailing list
>>Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>>
>>RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy
>