Danny,
Where were you when our GNSO Councilors were asking for input on this? 
A late intervention that takes an accusatory tone over an issue you have long been invited to weigh in on is not very productive. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:06 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Supports the Loss of Escrow Rights
> 
> The NCUC is on the verge of casting a critical vote on the RAA.
> 
> Amendments to the RAA have been proposed that declare that if a registrant
> wants to utilize private or proxy registrations, the registrar reserves
> the right not to escrow the underlying customer data.
> 
> Why is the NCUC countenancing the loss of this significant right?  Why is
> it prepared to accept this deficient package of amendments?
> 
> The rationale seems to be that if the constituency agrees to numerous
> odious clauses, it might have the chance in the remote future to weigh in
> on the possibility of listing a set of registrant rights.
> 
> Apparently, the constituency is not aware of the fact that the "no-third
> party beneficiaries" clause clearly conveys the fact that the RAA contract
> provides no rights whatsoever to the registrant, and that this
> consideration will never ever change.
> 
> The NCUC is being sold a bill of goods by charming snake-oil salesmen from
> the registrar constituency -- the same people that rejected every single
> proposed revision to the RAA put forward by any party whatsoever.
> 
> Why should we lose precious existing rights merely in exchange for the
> vague promise of perhaps seeing some list in the future?  This is not a
> wise course of action for the constituency to pursue.
> 
> The registrar's motion to accept the complete package of RAA amendments
> should be rejected.  Common sense should prevail.  The proposed RAA
> amendments have some good elements and some bad elements.  Reject the bad
> parts and accept the good parts.  There is no requirement to accept the
> package in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
>