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.

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 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.

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.

BB

-----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.