Hi again,
I just saw on the council list that Avri says the Board is scheduled
to vote on the council's motion on the RAA amendments on 23 April.
Assuming this passes the drafting team would then have to form by 30
days later, and it would make sense for us to have at least a sketch
of what we want by the time it does, particularly since it's been
suggested that the RrC produce a list of existing registrant rights;
the team shouldn't start with just that as a foundation to work
from. Avri has also suggested some straightforward elements for the
team mandate.
So the timeline is really very short. Need to get cracking on this,
Bill
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:32 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Beau, et al,
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bill. I'm willing to take the lead on the ALAC side. We'd
>> certainly benefit from Alan's involvement as well. I'm cc'ing
>> Danny, though I haven't heard from him in a while.
>
> Excellent. Anyone else who was involved before in the ALAC
> discussions prior that we might be able to lure in, e.g. Vittorio?
>>
>> Why don't I ask staff to help us set up a wiki page, revive the old
>> RAA-WG mailing list, and begin asking for some help from within the
>> community, as opposed to without it. I
>
> Right, I'd get a core group together from within our spheres and
> then when we have a process and digestible stuff to point to we can
> solicit inputs from without. Aside from Internet policy civil
> society advocacy networks like IGF's IGC and Rights and Principles
> coalition and OECD's CSISAC, there must be some way to reach out to
> at least some actual registrants...maybe ISOC could be useful....?
> It'd be odd to have an entirely internal small group process on a
> matter that affects millions of users....
>
>> have been out of the loop on RAA stuff for several weeks, so I
>> don't actually have a clear understanding of how/whether anything
>> has progressed since Mexico.
>
> Mary was on the last council call, if there was more to the
> discussion than what I pulled from the draft minutes maybe she can
> amplify. Don't know if there's been any discussion within the board.
>>
>> I'm certainly willing to be one of the drafters and to address some
>> of the other issues you talk about. At minimum, I think we need to
>> author a registrants' basic "bill of rights" to work from; I know
>> this has been a sticky point with the registrar community, they
>> think such a thing should come from them, but I'm not necessarily
>> comfortable with that.
>
> They'll undoubtedly have clear ideas and proposals but we obviously
> shouldn't be in just a reactive posture and need our own.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:29 PM
>> To: Brendler, Beau
>> Cc: NCUC Members List; Greenberg, Alan
>> Subject: Charter of Registrants' Rights
>>
>> Hi Beau,
>>
>> I've been meaning to circle back to you on this issue but alas too
>> much else going on...We really need to get moving on the charter,
>> since:
>>
>> *The public comment period on the RAA amendments closed April 6.
>> Not a ton of feedback but some interesting bits, summarized by
>> staff at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00080.html
>>
>> *The board hasn't acted yet on the Council's 4 March resolution,
>> but once they do team(s) formation is to happen within 30 days---
>> mandated to draft a charter, identify any further amendments to the
>> RAA, and provide advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later
>> than 31 July 2009.
>>
>> *Tim Ruiz of the RrC sent a note saying they're ready to proceed
>> when we are, i.e. they're waiting on us.
>>
>> *The GNSO council is scheduled to address this on its Thursday 16th
>> call. I gather from the draft minutes of the last council meeting
>> (I was on a plane) that there was some discussion of whether to
>> form one unified drafting team or two; that someone suggested the
>> Registrars provide a list of existing rights (hmm..); and that Avri
>> suggested the need for a description of the group's mission, and
>> that the council begin with one group while leaving open the option
>> to split into two if needed.
>>
>> A single drafting team may be better than having two advance
>> potentially quite different proposals and then trying to reconcile
>> them, but it would still make sense for interested people from NCUC
>> and ALAC to have worked together to identify at least a working
>> shared conception of what we'd want in there so that whomever
>> represents us on the team has more to go on (hopefully there will
>> be back and forth consultation during the drafting as well). It
>> would also make sense to solicit any inputs from other interested/
>> affected communities; presumably we'd want as inclusive and
>> transparent a process as possible. Thus far I've held off on
>> bringing this to the attention of other IG-oriented civil society
>> groupings because we don't have easily accessible background
>> material, the sort of stuff that would really motivate responses.
>> The helpful information you pointed me to regarding ALAC's prior
>> discussions, https://st.icann.org/raa-policy/index.cgi?raa_working_group_documents
>> and http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02sep08-en.htm
>> might be a bit difficult as a starting point for people outside the
>> process.
>>
>> Anyway, we need to quickly pull together a group of ALAC and NCUC
>> people who'd like to collaborate on some baseline text. Of course,
>> other ALAC and NCUC people should feel free to provide any inputs
>> even if they don't want to participate in this group. And per
>> previous, I think it would also be good for the group to put
>> together a little outreach text that can be sent to solicit ideas
>> from other interested
>> communities, maybe set up a wiki for more background and inputs, etc.
>> And subsequently, we'll need to decide who we'd want on the formal
>> drafting team negotiating with the RrC etc.
>>
>> I'm willing to be a/the liaison from the NCUC side (hopefully
>> others will be interested as well), but I'm really not in a
>> position to lead on this process. As you've pointed out, ALAC has
>> been working on this stuff for awhile, so it'd make sense for you,
>> Alan, Danny, whomever's had their head deep in these issues and
>> cares enough to drive the thing and I'll lend a hand where able.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Bill. Seems like a great idea to invite participation from IGF,
>>> and from Katitza's mailing list people as well. I think you are far
>>> more familiar to both groups than I am, so it would probably be
>>> better
>>> if you did the inviting...
>>>
>>> Beau
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: William Drake [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:15 AM
>>> To: Brendler, Beau
>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: RAA
>>>
>>> Hi Beau
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Bill and I and any others who are interested can simply
>>>> form
>>>> a drafting team and set up a joint workspace, start a mailing list
>>>> and try to get maximum participation. We should be able to get
>>>> ICANN
>>>> staff to assist us in this effort.
>>>
>>> Great. I guess my initial foggy thought was a sequential approach
>>> where NCUC and ALAC each do an internal consult and then merge
>>> files,
>>> but there's no reason not to proceed directly to a joint drafting
>>> team, which should accelerate things and put us in a good position
>>> for
>>> when the formal group with other GNSO constituencies is launched.
>>> I'd
>>> be happy to participate. Shall we invite the IGF Rights and
>>> Principles folks to suggest people (might overlap with ALAC
>>> participants anyway)?
>>>
>>> BD
>>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>> ***
>> Scanned
>>
>> **
>> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated
>> recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail
>> and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain,
>> copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any
>> purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have
>> received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender
>> by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any
>> attachments from your computer system.
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
|
