[Ncu-exec] Proposed Schedule & Agenda for NCUC Constituency Day Tuesday 3 March in Mexico City

[William Drake]

Hi Robin,

I'm posting this to the main list as it seems of relevance to the  
constituency generally.

I'd like to propose an addition to the Tuesday program: the RAA.

As you know, there was a counsel vote on RAA amendments a month or two  
ago.  The amendments were rejected in significant part because Mary,  
Carlos and I voted against. I've never actually had a chance to  
discuss this with Mary and Carlos, but can say why I voted no.   I  
have no major problem with most of the amendments, which seem like  
sensible improvements that I figured eventually would go through.   
However, there was one bit I wanted to hear more discussion and maybe  
get some assurances on.  This concerns registrant (aka consumer/user/ 
citizen) protections.

new RAA Subsection 3.15:
3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to
Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that
identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities,
and the content of such webpage is developed in
consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link
to the webpage on any website it may operate for
domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to
its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its
links to policies or notifications required to be displayed
under ICANN Consensus Policies.

I understand this provision was in part a response to Vittorio  
Bertola's suggesting a few years back that registrant rights should be  
clearly listed in contracts (ALAC apparently did nothing to follow up  
on the idea, but this was added as a nod).  But as responses go, the  
GNSO's text seems a bit underwhelming.  IF staff decide to do  
something that should have been done long ago, AND they do it in  
consultation with registrars, there should be a web link.  Yipee.

I wanted to hear more about what specifically might constitute a  
reasonable set of rights and responsibilities (hopefully not to  
include over the top WHOIS commitments).   And about whether we could  
imagine some baseline level of harmonization, a standardized set of  
minimum protections---as Vittorio noted in a post to the IGF rights  
and principles group's list---akin to airline passengers' rights in  
the EU.  Or, if harmonization is deemed by registrars to be too  
intrusive on commercial practices and too insensitive to varying  
registrar practices and conditions, what about a model set that  
enlightened registars could visibly opt in on to attract customers?

A couple days ago, Tim Ruiz proposed a new motion for passing the RAA  
amendments when we vote again this Wednesday.  Inter alia, it calls  
for a Drafting Team to identify those issues that the community  
believes could be further revised through PDP processes or through  
additional changes to the RAA, so maybe at that point such questions  
would be considered.   My third hand understanding is that registrars  
previously expressed openness to maybe potentially considering a code  
of practice, but only if the RAA amendments package were approved  
first.  But as I've not heard much about consumer protection since  
joining the counsel and out there in the world the levels of  
protection vary widely, it seemed reasonable to want to get a better  
sense of the intentions and future direction on such matters at the  
front end, rather than just signing a blank check that allows the rest  
of the amendments to go forward while nothing gets done on registrant  
rights.

Anyway, this morning Tim wrote to us lobbying for our votes so the  
amendments pass Wednesday.  I outlined in reply my concerns and asked  
whether something couldn't be done to build in an assurance that work  
will commence on registrant rights.  He replied that a number of  
registrars would be ready and willing to work on baseline rights,  
noting in particular the post-expiry deletes issue, and suggested that  
perhaps we can make specific mention of this within the motion to set  
the stage for pursuing it sooner than later.

In short, we're now in a situation where, having withheld support,  
registrars may be willing to negotiate with us wording that would  
create momentum for work on registrant rights.  This seems promising  
to me.  But of course, we would need to a) wordsmith an amendment  
pledging that the drafting team or whomever will seriously and  
promptly address the matter, and then b) come up with some clear  
thinking about exactly what rights (and responsibilities) we might  
ultimately want established.

Of course, if nobody else thinks this is a particularly useful  
initiative, i.e. that there's more risk than potential benefit, then I  
can drop it, but it seemed like there was an opening to make a small  
difference.

If instead people think this is worth considering, it would be great  
if on Tuesday we could come to some consensus on these matters within  
the constituency, prior to the vote on Wednesday.

Ok?

Bill



On Feb 27, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear NCUC Executive Committee:
>
> Please take a look at the proposed agenda and schedule for  
> constituency day in Mexico City and let me know if you have any  
> suggestions, questions, concerns, etc about the developing plans for  
> the meeting.
>
> I'd like to post this schedule and agenda to the main NCUC list  
> asap, so please take a minute to review it as soon as possible.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> All best,
> Robin
>
> ===============================
>
> NCUC Constituency Day
> Tuesday 3 March 2009
> 34th ICANN Public Meeting
> Sheraton Hotel, Mexico City, MEXICO
>
> Schedule For Tuesday 3 March 2009:
>
> 9:30am – 12:00pm
> NCUC Constituency Meeting
> Room: Don Julián @ Sheraton Hotel
>
> 12:00pm – 12:30pm: Lunch Break
>
> 12:30pm – 2:00pm
> “Users’ House” Joint Meeting of NCUC/BC/IPR/ISP/ALAC
> Room: Don Alberto 2-4 @ Sheraton Hotel
>
> 2:20pm – 5:30pm
> NCUC Constituency Meeting
> Room: Don Julián @ Sheraton Hotel
> Note: 2:20pm – 3:15pm: Board Governance Committee Members Talk With  
> NCUC
>
>
> Discussion Agenda for NCUC Constituency Day
>
> I.  Substantive Policy Discussions
>
>
> 1.  GNSO Restructuring
>
>
> 2.  Introduction of New gTLD Policy Concerns
>
>
> 3.  WHOIS Drafting Team
>
>
> 4.  Post-Expiry Domain Names Recovery PDP
>
>
> 5.  GNSO Travel Policy Drafting Team
>
>
> 6. Fast Flux Working Group
>
>
> II.  NCUC Administrative / Constituency Business
>
>
> 1.  NCUC Representation on GNSO Committees / Working Groups
>
>
> 2.  Recruiting New NCUC Members
>
>
> 3.  Recruiting Participation in GNSO Working Groups, Drafting Teams,  
> etc.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090228/8c562805/attachment.html>