[Registrants-rights] RAA working group vice-chair

Sun Mar 11 20:12:13 UTC 2012

Thanks for this call Beau,

Just to let everyone know that I feel quite passionate about this working
group and have followed up on its progress since the Singapore meeting.

I have no doubt on Beau's obvious abilities and experience in this area,
and I have offered to act as vice chair to support him in ensuring
progression of this important work and production of tangible deliverables.

Regards

Cintra Sooknanan

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Beau Brendler
<beaubrendler at earthlink.net>wrote:

> Greetings again, all.
>
> I have had a much-appreciated offer from someone to be vice-chair for this
> group. I tend to be somewhat informal about these kinds of things, so my
> inclination is to just say yes, however, I wanted to open up to the list to
> see if anyone would specifically like to act as vice-chair. Right now, a
> lot of that responsibility would be to work with staff to establish a
> schedule of virtual meetings (conference calls), helping maintain and grow
> the mailing lists, etc.
>
> Would anyone like to put their name forward for vice-chair? If I don't
> hear anything by Wednesday morning Costa Rica time, I will take the person
> who generously offered, up on the offer. If we have others, we can possibly
> create co-vice-chairs (there will be plenty of work to do and we will
> organize the responsibilities and authority efficiently).
>
> Thanks
>
> Beau
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beau Brendler **
> Sent: Mar 11, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Cc: staff at atlarge.icann.org, salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com,
> yrjo.lansipuro at isoc.fi, h.raiche at internode.on.net,
> cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com, matt.ashtiani at icann.org,
> 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
> Cc: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com, yrjo.lansipuro at isoc.fi,
> h.raiche at internode.on.net, cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com,
> matt.ashtiani at icann.org, carlton.samuels at gmail.com, langdonorr at gmail.com,
> 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
> >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
> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
> >>
> >>RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy
> >
> ****
> **********
>
> ********
>
>