[PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal

[William Drake]

+1 from the peanut gallery

Bill

On Mar 28, 2013, at 11:08 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> I found Joy's text, and will borrow liberally for a personal statement.
> Do we have consensus on these for an NCSG position, or should we submit
> that shortly after, in the "reply" period?
> 
> 
> NCSG DRAFT POINTS:
> 
> 
> 
> ?    Violates multi-stakeholder, bottom-up principles ? no community
> consultation on the proposed amendments: bilateral contract
> negotiations shouldn't set policy in a multi-stakeholder environment
> ?    Abrogates the picket fence
> ?    Not evidence based and therefore irrational and no legal basis: no
> evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this solution;
> no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event, any such
> evidence/rationale must be subject to community input
> ?    Registrants rights and responsibilities bogus document and should
> not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies
> ?    Privacy/proxy [I believe Wendy had a point about this, but I can?t
> recall it exactly]
> ?    The process for these negotiations and the introduction of powers of
> unilateral decision-making are under-mining our advocacy for the ICANN
> model in other multi-stakeholder fora
> ?    At the GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff advised the rationale was
> ?this is the process for negotiation? ? this is fundamentally the
> wrong approach to the RAA as this is public, not private, policy making
> ?    We support the Registrars and Registries in their opposition to
> these proposals.
> 
> 
> On 03/28/2013 12:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> I agree that we really need to get a statement in on this issue asap.  I
>> thought Joy had sent around a draft stmt a couple weeks ago (or a few
>> points to go into a stmt).
>> 
>> Or I have I completely lost my marbles?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> 
>>> We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would people
>>> think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?
>>> 
>>> Namely,
>>> "NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
>>> concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00000.html
>>> "
>>> 
>>> I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
>>> but not sure given timing.
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg