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
***********************************************************