Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) DT
Sub Team A
TRANSCRIPTION
Monday 14 December at 21:00 UTC
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of Registrar Accreditation
Agreement (RAA) drafting team Sub Team A meeting on Monday 14 December 2009 at
21:00UTC.Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due
to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at
the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
Coordinator: Excuse me, this is the conference coordinator. Today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. You may begin.
Beau Brendler: Hello there.
Gisella Gruber-White: Would you like a quick roll call?
Beau Brendler: Well I know that Michele is trying to get into this call.
Gisella Gruber-White: He’s on the call.
Beau Brendler: Oh he’s on?
Michele Neylon: I’m here.
Beau Brendler: Yes, a quick roll then, thank you.
Gisella Gruber-White: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everyone on today’s RAA sub team A call. We have (Bo Bindler), (Michaela Nalon), (Paul Diaz), (Eliza Cooper), (Tim Reese), (Cheryl Langdon Orr). From staff we have (Margie Milam), (Marika Coning), (Liz Gasta), (David Diza), and myself Gisella Gruber-White and we don’t have any apologies. If I could please also remind everyone to state their names when speaking for transcript purposes. Thank you.
Beau Brendler: Okay thank you. This is (Bo). (Michaela) and I had a good chat this morning to try to ensure that this is a bit more useful than the last call. We had some complaints. So what he and I agreed to do after some conversation was that I would sort of very briefly state my perspective on the way to go forward like very briefly and then he would do the same and then we would just end that with discussing a couple of ways that we thought would be good to take this group forward in a more efficient manner so that’s what we’ll do.
So basically after the last call there were some concerns from - concerns voiced by some members of the at large community that what we were doing in this meeting amounted to not much more than stenography, in other words taking material from an already existing document and simply restating it in another document.
And my response to that was that I sort of agreed with that but that we would try to provide the list that was - that has come to be known now as the aspirational list that would contain some ideas and requests for supplementary additions to this registrant rights charter. And then (Michaela) had a good idea and had his side of the coin to discuss so I’ll let him jump in and say what he thought when I said that this morning.
Michele Neylon: Okay, I mean, basically the - there’s two things. The - forget about the 2001 RAA to start with because that’s no - we can’t really deal with that anymore. It’s history. So we’re looking at the 2009 RAA and its provisions and one of them is this registrants’ rights and obligations document which has to be based on what currently exists. It can’t be based on what could exist or what people might like to exist.
So the - what we were discussing this morning – well this morning for (Bo), this afternoon for me – was basically to do two things kind of simultaneously. One would be to work on this document. However, it’s not going to be a case of us just drafting the document.
We discussed and (Bo) can support me on this I hope, that ICANN staff would be able to draft something in plain English based on the matrix and document and everything else and then we could move forward with that and at the same time as topics come up that people would like to see that will go into what we’re now referring to as the aspirational document.
I mean, the main thing here is that we need to produce something quickly and, you know, make this productive as opposed to it being a long dragged-out process so trying to keep us focused, you know, what can go in.
And when we have some kind of draft document hopefully I think we said sometime in January or thereabouts that we would be able to kind of, you know, thrash through that document and go okay, you know, this sounds good, doesn’t sound good, you know, maybe it needs to be reworded, maybe it needs to be jigged in some way or other.
But it wouldn’t be simply a case of people feeling that we’re just kind of drafting documents, it’s more working of us collaboratively on what we can work on and then putting other stuff down for – I’m sorry – for future amendments.
Beau Brendler: Yes, that’s right, that’s what we both agreed. And we also both agreed that in order to do that we would need plain English documents as (Michaela) said of both the sort of matrix documents that (Margie) put together, a version of that that’s more in plain English and more in a format that people could read.
And then also a plain English version of the existing document so that it will be easy for us to draft, easier for us to create a final version quickly that just strictly looks at, you know, any policies or discrepancies between the two that might be missing. And then concurrently with that work we would also do the aspirational list which we can supply to the team B so that they know what this group wants to see in future versions.
(Michaela) brought up a good point this morning which is that at the moment in a sense there is an existing RAA now that talks about this document but there is no document because we have to create it so everyone’s out of - in a sense out of compliance. The faster we do this the better it will be for consumers. So does anybody have any questions or objections to that sort of nuance to the forward progress?
Tim Ruiz: This is (Tim), I do have one question.
Beau Brendler: Sure.
Tim Ruiz: Yeah I was just - I might have missed part of it, I was just curious what you meant by policies that are seen as something separate from the aspirational document. Or did I get that wrong?
Michele Neylon: What?
Beau Brendler: I’m not sure I understand that question.
Michele Neylon: I don’t understand it either (Tim). What do you mean?
Tim Ruiz: Well (Bo) had said something about putting together the list of current responsibilities but then saying something about - he said something about where - making out where policies might be missing or something of that nature. He mentioned the aspirational document as something separate so I’m just trying to clarify.
Michele Neylon: Well that’s - okay, basically there are two - there were two things. One was that we have a document which was generated by staff which tries to pull in all the existing consensus policies and the various clauses within the 2009 RAA. And based on that, this would form the basis of this draft document.
The thing of course is that there might be some part of consensus policy that wasn’t encompassed within the matrix that we have. So obviously if we’re missing some parts of consensus policy that should be included, that should be brought in at that point. I’m not saying...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: ...this is a case of if they didn’t then we have time to fix this.
Beau Brendler: (Margie) has her hand up.
(Margie Milam): Yes sure, I wanted to comment on the proposal and give you some background. As staff we have been asked to put together a plain English version of the RAA. It came from a request from the at large group and we’re currently working on that project.
And so what you guys are suggesting fits perfectly in line with that approach because the person who will be drafting that plain English RAA can easily take a stab at, you know, trying to put together a plain English version of this registrant rights charter for this group to look at so I think the approach makes a lot of sense.
The one thing I wanted to talk a little bit with coordination with the work that’s going on in the RAA B group which we just concluded the call a few minutes ago, and the only thing I wanted to raise is they’re pushing on a pretty tight schedule I believe from the call that we just concluded. We were trying to get to a point where we would have something done by February 4.
So the only thing I would like to stress to this group is if you have anything that you would like that group to consider in the RAA amendment process, something for example from the aspirational rights that should be considered as or could be considered as an RAA amendment, we would want to highlight those rather quickly so that we get it into the report that the other group is working on.
Beau Brendler: Thank you (Margie), this is (Bo). I think, you know, I’m not sure if there’s anything else that - I don’t necessarily see a problem with that timeline if we can get those English language versions of the documents we referenced. Both (Michaela) and I agreed earlier and I think perhaps the group will agree that we need those in order to proceed rationally to get the document done right and quickly.
(Margie Milam): Yeah and I think the timing would work well if you’re talking about early January. I think that’s about right.
Beau Brendler: (Cheryl Langdon Orr) has raised her hand. (Cheryl)?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Well now I have to get busy typing right here. I’m going to wear my fingernails down if I’m not careful. And there was a little bit of forethought when we wrote to the Chairman of the Board and the board saying that a plain language version of the RAA was essential. I’m very pleased to see that’s underway.
Is the January time realistic though? Are we - do I need to put additional pressure on the process to try and bring it to the beginning of January as opposed to the end of January? What do we need to do to make sure that these two activities are better (suited) to each other?
Beau Brendler: Well this is (Bo) again. I heard the tail end of the last call that they are scheduling their next meeting for I think the first or second week of January, right? So the first week?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Yes.
Beau Brendler: So, I mean, is there a possibility of having it done by then? Then we could convene this next meeting and have the documents and go to work.
(Margie Milam): Yeah (Bo) this is (Margie), I will check on the status of that. My understanding is that it was expected to be done very quickly but I don’t have the exact timeframe so I’ll send an email to the list.
Beau Brendler: Okay, that would be good.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): And I am happy to use sharp pointed sticks to help it happen.
Beau Brendler: Okay good. So do we have any other comments or suggestions or concerns about that means of process, in other words waiting basically until our next meeting at the beginning of January hopefully to have the English language versions of the two documents referenced?
Michele Neylon: Plain English, plain English.
Beau Brendler: Plain English, yes. What did I say?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Plain language, plain language.
Beau Brendler: Language being a geographically inclusive term, is that it?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Thank you, thank you, yes.
Man: Plain language initially in English though, right?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Correct.
Man: Which version of English?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): An English version of a plain language document.
Man: There we go.
Michele Neylon: I want it to be EN-IE just to be awkward.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Well I’ll see - if you can find a translation tool we’ll see what we can do (Michaela).
Michele Neylon: That’s okay. I’m a qualified translator. Don’t you worry.
Beau Brendler: Okay so do we want to move to any further discussion then now that we’ve got the - now that we’ve got that particular track established? Do we want to raise any issues or questions about the current draft list of aspirational registrant rights? There were no contributions to the Wiki on this, is that correct? I guess that would be a (Heidi) question. Is (Heidi) on the call?
Woman: I think (Heidi) is not on the call right now but that is my understanding (Bo).
Beau Brendler: Okay then can I possibly deputize somebody from the at large to do a little discussion within the at large? I mean, I could probably do it but is there anyone who would like to specifically bring...
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Well (Bo), (Cheryl) here. I think that’s something that you need to raise and maybe on the 22nd because it really should be between now and January that each of the at large...
((Crosstalk))
Beau Brendler: You’re referring to the call?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): (Unintelligible) the 22nd but after the - between the 22nd and the first week in January, on or about the 4th of January there is no reason why the various regional representatives can’t bring back input straight into the Wiki from, you know, discussions that we are having.
Beau Brendler: I think that timing could work well. So if I could make, you know, an agenda item for the 22nd to be, you know, a very strong request to the at large community to weigh in.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): I’ll give you a full five minutes on the agenda (Bo), not a problem.
Beau Brendler: That’s great, thanks. A review of requested work spaces. This is not my specialty. Do we have staff who wants to speak to either of these? Are they both completed?
Woman: I don’t know, that was (Heidi)’s task. I don’t know if (Heidi) is on the call.
Evan Leibovitch: She should be in just a minute or two. The (NARALO) call just finished.
Woman: Okay thanks.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry, this is (Evan).
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Oh hi (Evan), how are you?
Beau Brendler: Hey (Evan).
Evan Leibovitch: Howdy.
Beau Brendler: Could we skip then to (Michaela) for agenda item 2c? Is there anything that those of us who have not been participating in working group B should know? I mean, how is the progress going with those folks?
Michele Neylon: Well okay, basically group B, the last meeting, not this evening’s meeting, was primarily with law enforcement going over the documents that they have provided and explaining the thinking behind some of the language that they have used.
And personally I thought it was quite productive because we were able to work out, see, you know, what the spirit of the word was as opposed to just the word that was being used. And, you know, some things that may have seemed quite scary in kind of black and white once you realized what they were actually talking about weren’t quite as scary as they might have appeared at first.
At the moment - I think that at the moment that working group is working its way through the various items that have been kind of brought in from different constituencies, law enforcement, various people within ALAC.
And some areas - I think what we’re trying to do at the moment is to kind of prioritize those various topics, those that address issues with relationships to finding workable definitions for some of the terminology that’s being used. About half the people on this call were on the other call. If anybody feels like jumping in, please do.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Hi, (Cheryl) here. Yeah I think the point on definitions is very worthwhile and just going on in a little bit more detail because on the other call it is clear that there were some definitions on things. For example (unintelligible) is very much the business of other work groups and what we didn’t want to do is duplicate other work group activities.
So the views of having documents from the other work group, you know, (unintelligible) to GNSA configurations so that they can be at Nairobi configuration needed to I believe (Michaela) it was the end of January.
The meeting at the beginning of January is to put a document together which recognizes and cross references to relevant work including some definitions from other groups. Now that’s something that whilst it’s not as a limiter on the work our group does I think it’s something that we need to be very aware of because the same definition and the same work group outcomes lead to cross referencing as well.
Beau Brendler: Okay, thank you.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): I assume we rely on staff to make sure we don’t pick up on that.
Beau Brendler: All right, I see (Heidi) has joined the call. (Heidi) just to back up on the agenda briefly, I think agenda item 2b, review of requested work spaces. Those are both complete now and we’re okay to use those as far as I know. Is that correct?
Heidi Ullrich: Yes. Again those are drafts so if you have any comments I’m happy to incorporate those and make those changes to the Wiki space.
Beau Brendler: Okay good. All right, let’s move along here then to item 3 on the agenda, establishment of deadlines which I think we’ve kind of gone over but it probably bears saying one more time.
So in essence proceeding forward from today we are going to try to get some movement and some speed on getting plain language, English language, English whatever the appropriate term is, versions of the RAA documents and (Margie)’s document. On the 22nd of this month I’m going to have five minutes or however shorter it takes than that on the at large call to exhort the community to come up with its aspirational registrant rights observations and requests.
Then on the 4th of January or thereabouts we’ll reconvene again hopefully with the plain language or English language documents in hand and move forward through the month of January concurrently working on first priority the existing RAA documents and second priority or concurrent priority the aspirational document which we will supply to group B. Is that what everybody has agreed on too so far? Does that sound right?
Okay, item 4, discussion of requests for additional staff resources. I’m not sure that we need them beyond what we’ve already very specifically discussed about getting documents. I did find it very helpful to have a brief chat with (Michaela) this morning so if staff would assist us in facilitating that if schedule permits on the day of or the Friday previous to our January 4 call that would be helpful. Any other requests for additional staff resources or comments on those agenda items?
Michele Neylon: Let’s make it the same day, not the Friday previously because that would be New Year’s Day I think.
Beau Brendler: Oh yeah, you’re right. Sorry about that, yeah of course. That’s fine with me.
Michele Neylon: (Unintelligible). I think we deserve a day off.
Beau Brendler: Yeah my hangover should be gone then.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): (Unintelligible) so I can fly back to Sydney so I’m walking and trying to talk to you at the same time. Can I respectfully request our last meeting (unintelligible) following the other that a slightly separate period between the two? Perhaps if we aim to start one on the hour and finish on the hour and then to start the next one (unintelligible). If we can aim to start that on the half hour just so you don’t have just - I mean, we pretty much (unintelligible) both calls because the other running one five to seven minutes over time. And I think that, you know, problematic if you are on both calls and problematic if you’re trying to make the transition.
Gisella Gruber-White: Sorry, excuse me, it’s to say that the previous call RAA sub team B there will be a (unintelligible) for that one. There was scheduling issues this week. It was of course canceled last week but we had to reschedule this week. We can keep this call at this time which will be fine but we will set up a (unintelligible) for the RAA sub team B to set a time for the new year.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): (Gisella) I’m not complaining, I actually to have that block of time out of my day but I just would like a little bit of separateness between the two (unintelligible) compromising the time of the two.
Gisella Gruber-White: Absolutely, taken into account.
Beau Brendler: Okay, agenda item number 5 then, next steps. I think we know what they are. I will speak to the at large on the 22nd, staff will try to get us the documents by January 4. Anyone who wants to contribute in the interim who has an inspiration who wants to get in and add aspirational suggestions is obviously strongly encouraged to do so and spread the word. Have I forgotten any next steps?
Michele Neylon: I think (Margie) wants to jump in there or was her hand up from earlier?
(Margie Milam): Yes, just about the prior point, I wanted to get a sense from the group. Do you prefer not having the RAA A and B on the same day? I know we could certainly schedule it so if we go over we don’t, you know, interfere but I’m just asking the group a question since there are so many people that overlap. Would you prefer it to be split up in two days as we schedule?
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): No, no, no, I prefer it on the same day.
(Margie Milam): You like it on the same day.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): I like the one day and my other days with the other work groups (unintelligible). It means you can actually focus on the subject, do your duty, get your (unintelligible) done, and it’s meaningful.
Evan Leibovitch: If I could just ask to try and next time make a little distance between the (NARALA) meeting and this one. The North American region of at large meets on the same Monday of every month and it was supposed to end exactly the same time this one started but it ran long and that’s why (Heidi) and I got here late. Just maybe another hour of cushion would be really nice.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): (Evan) I mentioned that we need a half hour to, you know, one finishes and the other starting so (unintelligible)?
Evan Leibovitch: No, no. It’s the same - it is as it is right now which is the second Monday of every month.
(Cheryl Langdon Orr): Okay because the group B team is meeting on or about the 4th of January so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Beau Brendler: (Demi Ruiz) has raised his hand.
Tim Ruiz Yeah it was kind of strange. (Unintelligible) keeps going down at least that’s what I see. At any rate I was going to mention that too, that maybe the call could be a little later. If the sub team B call is going to continue to be the hour before then that’s an issue too because a lot of us are on that call and that doesn’t give it the opportunity to run over if it needs to or it may because it butts up to this one. So that would be another reason to schedule this a little bit later.
Beau Brendler: Okay, anybody have anything else?
Michele Neylon: The same thing, maybe give us a half an hour between the two it might help just to get that buffer, having both calls on the same evening.
Beau Brendler: Okay, any additions? If not, then ((Spanish Spoken)), all that sort of thing to everyone. All right. Okay so January 4 then at the same - at the time that staff determines but being close to this time.
Michele Neylon: Okay.
Woman: Thank you.
Woman: Okay.
Man: Thanks.
Woman: Thanks a lot, bye.
END
