Wendy:
Yes, that signal seems increasingly important given the GAC's actions in Dakar. From reading the transcript, it appeared to me that the GAC was saying that they could dictate policy to the registrars and that it didn't need to go through a GNSO policy process. Was that impression correct? Not being in Dakar, I cannot judge the atmospherics - did the Board or the Registries and registrars seem inclined to accept that dictate? 

I hope not, obviously, but reading the resolution below, I come away with a far less optimistic interpretation than you all seem to have. I see the Board bowing to the GAC's pressure and instructing the negotiations on the RAA to include the LEA recommendations - regardless of whether they survive the policy making process. 

Also, forgive me if this is a redundant request, but I need links to the basic documents we are dealing with here. Where are the LEA recommendations documented and stored? Where is the latest version of the RAA that we are working on? What other documents are relevant to this discussion?

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I think it is wonderful that the Board has finally awoken to it
> > capability of requesting a PDP.
> 
> Agreed. It should signal to the community that the GNSO is the place for
> these policy issues -- and to the GNSO Council that it's time to get to
> work.
> 
> >
> > I also think this is a good opportunity for us as a SG, as
> > constituencies and as individuals to make comments both on the changes
> > proposed in the RrSG/Staff negotiated changes and on the issues
> > report.
> 
> I'd love to help NCSG volunteers coordinate to watch this issue and
> develop suggestions.
> 
> > I wonder whether the staff is willing to use the new issues report
> > methodology included in the new PDP process that include:
> >
> > 1. release of an initial issues report that is subject to a comment
> > period and update 2. requires a rights impact analysis
> >
> > I know this has not yet been approved by the Board, but nonetheless,
> > nothing in the current by-laws would prevent staff from using the new
> > guidelines for this issues report.
> 
> Excellent suggestion.  I can raise that to Council as we consider what
> to do with the Issue Report set in the pre-Dakar meeting on registrar
> contact information.  That report could be folded into this one, to save
> staff from duplicative work, but only if we don't lose important
> elements of the freedom-of-expression impact analysis (which could be
> taken up in the "rights impact analysis" of the new PDP.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28 Oct 2011, at 18:04, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> >
> >> As we had lots of discussion of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
> >> at and surrounding this ICANN meeting, I wanted to share this
> >> resolution from the ICANN Board transcript at
> >> <http://domainincite.com/docs/board-meeting-one-dakar-oct-28-2011.txt
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Note particularly that the Board is initiating an Issue Report to the
> >> GNSO Council, directing us to start a PDP on additional items.
> >> It's good to see that recognition of the GNSO's responsibility, and
> >> puts plenty of work ahead of us to respond.
> >>
> >> --Wendy
> >>
> >> Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments. Whereas, the GNSO
> >> Council resolved on 4 March 2009 to support registrar accreditation
> >> agreements, RAA, amendments as documented in the following link,
> >> recommend to the board that they be adopted and to form a drafting
> >> team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those
> >> on which further action may be desirable. WHEREAS, the Council
> >> provided a report from that working group the prioritized
> >> recommendations for RAA amendment topics. WHEREAS, law enforcement
> >> representatives have met on several occasions to develop and deliver
> >> recommendations for registrar accreditation agreement amendment
> >> topics and those recommendations have been endorsed by icann's
> >> governmental advisory committee. WHEREAS, the GNSO has extensively
> >> debated the process for developing and approving amendments to the
> >> raa. whereas, continuing to evolve the RAA is an important element in
> >> a program to protect registrants and safeguard the stability of a
> >> single interoperable internet. WHEREAS, the gTLD registrars and ICANN
> >> are entering into negotiations to consider existing recommendations
> >> and deliver a proposed seat of meaningful amendments in the global
> >> public interest with the twin goals of registrant protection and
> >> stability in mind. RESOLVED, 2011.10.28, following the number, the
> >> ICANN board directs negotiations to commence immediately, resulting
> >> in proposed amendments to be provided for consideration at ICANN's
> >> meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. RESOLVED, the subject of the
> >> negotiations should include law enforcement and GNSO working group
> >> recommendations as well as other topics that would advance the twin
> >> goals of registrant protection and DNS stability. RESOLVED, the board
> >> also requests the creation of an issues report to undertake a GNSO
> >> policy development process as quickly as possible to address
> >> remaining items suited for a PDP.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] Fellow, Yale Law School
> >> Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet &
> >> Society at Harvard University
> >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> >> https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> >> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law
> School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet &
> Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/