Hi

On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Mary and all,
>
> You are right that the issue of a Registrants' Rights Charter is of  
> significant interest to the constituency, and has been something we  
> have been calling for for quite awhile, so I'm glad to see the GNSO  
> is taking some positive action on this issue.

It would have been good to know of this interest in real time.  If  
you'll indulge me for a moment...

I just looked at my sent mail and see that I wrote to the list on Dec.  
15 and 18 concerning the introduction of RAA motions that were  
eventually tabled until the January counsel session (at ALAC's  
request), and asked for inputs.  Received none.  In parallel, and I  
and other counselors sent a number of messages in the Nov-Jan. period  
asking for community input on the wider range of issues under  
consideration and received little back.  On February 19 I wrote to the  
list saying we have a vote tonight on RAA and does anyone have any  
inputs, no replies.  Similarly, on February 23 I wrote to the list  
asking if anyone wanted to provide inputs on registration abuse  
issues, again no replies.  And so on.

At the January 8 meeting, Mary, Carlos and I voted against endorsing  
the RAA amendments package, as did four people from the various  
industry groups.  Four others abstained, and the motion did not pass.   
We did this for three main reasons: a) the process of defining  
amendments have been rather closed and didn't allow much input by  
groups other than the staff and registrars; b) the implementation  
schedule is asynchronous, with registrars taking on the new  
obligations only as their extant contracts expire, meaning the  
tightened regulations etc would for year apply to some registrars and  
registrants but not others; and c) there had been no discussion in the  
run up to the vote of consumer protection issues, and the amendments'  
treatment of same seemed weak.  So while there are other elements that  
are useful in terms of tighter enforcement etc and a lot if interest  
in the broader ICANN nexus in seeing this go forward, it seemed  
sensible to withhold support and wait for the parties concerned to  
come and ask what do you need to say yes, which happened.

We then asked for a firm commitment on a team to work on a charter,  
which seemed like the only structured way to get nomcomm voices at the  
table and proposals for a meaningful charter on the table.  Also  
seemed like a good bridge builder, and indeed there many expressions  
in MC of happiness about the cooperation and GNSO being able to get  
something done, which hopefully translates to at least little  
political capital/goodwill.  But on the eve of the vote, Danny wrote  
to the list and blasted us for being idiots and giving away the store  
because of the escrow opt out provision etc.  First I at least had  
heard of this concern, it didn't resonate when I looked at the  
amendments (my bad, I'm far from an expert on registrar operations and  
regulations) and nobody had said anything previously here.  Since we'd  
already worked with the other constituencies and said how we'd vote it  
was too late to change track without more developed and compelling  
information, so we didn't.  Anyway, I tend to think that ultimately  
the RAA would have gone forward in some manner even if we'd pissed  
everyone off with a rapid about face, and that the drafting team  
should provide an opportunity to raise any all concerns that we didn't  
have before.

All of which is to say: a) as a general matter, counselors really do  
need timely and reasonably action-oriented community feedback if we  
are supposed to be reflecting community sentiment in votes, and b) in  
the particular case of the RAA, we will really need such engagement if  
we're going to leverage the opportunity provided by the charter  
commitment, rather than ending up with something anodyne and  
meaningless.  I really hope Danny and others with concerns will raise  
these in as concrete a manner possible so that whomever represents  
noncomm on the drafting team can negotiate from a stronger position.

>
> It looks like a Drafting Team will be created within 30 days of the  
> Board approving the RAA Amendments.  Has that happened yet?  (When  
> is it expected to happen?)

The public comment period closes April 6.  No comments since October http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation 
.  I'm not sure of the precise schedule from there.
>
> We will need several volunteers to participate on the Drafting Team  
> once it is established, so I hope people will consider becoming  
> involved in this initiative and contributing their time and energy  
> to the DT.
>
> It would also be good to get some discussion going on the list as to  
> what we (as the noncommercial users) would like to see in this  
> Charter.  Surely every constituency will come to the Drafting Team  
> with a few key elements each would like to see in the Charter.

Yes.  Also, there are others interested groups.  I didn't know it at  
the time (again, my newbie bad) but I guess ALAC has been talking  
about this for awhile (and supported the MC deal) and some people  
there are quite interested in the charter.  Also, the IGF Rights and  
Principles Dynamic Coalition has been talking about the charter, Max  
got juiced on the idea at the ALAC summit.  So it would make sense for  
there to be some outreach and cooperation and try to get on board good  
ideas from all relevant quarters.

> Any ideas or suggestions from anyone as to what ought to belong in  
> an ICANN Registrants' Rights Charter?   Should we consider  
> parameters or other guidance for criteria to include in such a  
> Charter?   This is a very big and open-ended question at this point  
> -- let's try to flesh it out and give it some definition.

If we could gather some ideas from within NCUC and then start a  
dialogue with ALAC and R&P that might be a way to proceed...?

Bill