Motion on RAA

[Alex Gakuru]

On PDP transparency, hope citing adopted PDP-WT Updated Final Report is
helpful?
- - -
Recommendation 39: GNSO Council Report to the Board (B/M)

The PDP-WT recommends that all reports to the ICANN Board concerning a PDP
should be publicly disclosed. In addition, it notes that the GNSO Council
is responsible for the Board Report either as author of the report or by
approving the report before it is sent to the Board. Board Reports on PDPs
should be delivered from the GNSO Council directly to the Board and if any
summaries or addenda are needed by request of the Board, those should be
the assembled by the GNSO council (upon consultation of the Working Group if
necessary). If feasible, the Board Report should be delivered to the Board
within 21 days
following the adoption of the Final Report. The PDP-WT discussed at length
the current
practice of ICANN Policy Staff submitting a separate report to the Board,
which is not
disclosed to the community and is drafted without the aid of the Council or
applicable PDP
Working Group. The PDP-WT unanimously believes that these reports should
not be kept
confidential. If ICANN Policy Staff would like to submit a separate report
related to a PDP to the Board or is requested to do so, it should be done
in an open and transparent matter and disclosed to the community at the
same time it is delivered to the Board. The PDP-WT notes that there might
be cases where certain confidential information cannot be publicly
disclosed due to its privileged nature. Nevertheless, even in those
circumstances, as much information as possible, without disclosing business
confidential information, must be provided. This may include a description
by ICANN Staff of the general nature of such information and the rationale
for its non-disclosure.
- - ends- -

regards,

Alex

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> On 10/28/2011 01:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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 -- wendy at seltzer.org 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 -- wendy at seltzer.org +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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111030/f5a7cb30/attachment-0001.html>