RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,

I for one have not that far ahead in that much detail, and have not
specifically covered those questions with the RrC in general.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 17, 2008 2:42 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

Thanks. As for the deadline, I was curious about "not sooner than"
dates, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. Correct?

As for the second motion, I have some clarifying questions:

1. Does "superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not
addressed in the present set of amendments" include those issues and
amendments that were not addressed to the satisfaction of the community
even if the relevant theme/topic is encompassed in the RAA amendments?
To give you some concrete examples, it is the view of the IPC that the
amendments do not go far enough w/r/t affiliated entities and graduated
sanctions. Under your motion, would those be issues included in the
"superset"?

2. The motion deals only with the procedure for proposing additional
amendments. What happens then? Assuming that amendments are proposed
once the procedure is developed, is the Registrar Constituency
committing to beginning a new round of negotiations promptly after any
additional amendments are proposed?

I acknowledge I'm being super-literal. Occupational hazard after
spending the last two weeks drafting Asset Purchase Agreements and
comments on the DAG. Nonetheless, the precision would be helpful.

Thanks.

K



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions

Kristina,

We tried to capture that in the resolve of the second motion:
The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by
which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and
amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work
with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional
amendments in the future.

I am sure that sooner would be better than later, but no deadline that I
am aware of. 

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 2:31 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Tim,

It would be helpful if the Registrar Constituency would clarify what
"open to continuing the dialogue" does and does not mean. To the extent
that there are temporal qualifications, it would be helpful to know
those, too. Would you please advise?

Thanks.

K 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:46 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motions


We are anxious to get these amendments approved and in place as quickly
as possible. Registrars are also generally open to further discussions.
We should we keep this as simple as possible so I propose the following
alternative motions:

Whereas:
- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
- The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are generally
thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;

Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to
the Board that they be adopted. 

Second motion: 

Whereas:
- The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by
the ICANN community be adopted;
- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be
required;
- The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about
future changes to the RAA; 

Resolve:
The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative process by
which to review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and
amendments not addressed in the present set of amendments and to work
with Registrars to develop a procedure for proposing additional
amendments in the future.

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 3:46 pm
To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


All,

Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two
motions being discussed:

Whereas:
- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
- The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally
thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
- It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that
implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level vote
(>66%) of the GNSO Council.

Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends to
the Board that they be adopted.

Second motion:

Whereas:
- The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed by
the ICANN community be adopted;
- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be
required;
- The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about
future changes to the RAA;

Resolve:
The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of
community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the
present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to
develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.

Thanks, Liz