RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I second the amendment.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
> 
> 
> Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an 
> amendment to Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. 
> In any event, I put forward the following as an amendment to 
> Mike's motion:
> 
> Whereas:
> 
> The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been 
> amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy 
> consultative process related to amending the RAA, including 
> several public comment periods and consultations; 
> 
> The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance 
> and enforcement tools for ICANN;
> 
> The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments 
> as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review 
> them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
> 
> Resolve:
> 
> The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in 
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendme
> nts-16dec08.pd
> f
> and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
> 
> The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the 
> amendments further and identify those that the community 
> believes could be further revised through PDP processes or 
> through additional changes to the RAA that may not fall 
> within scope of a formal PDP process.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. 
> > There is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, 
> draft recs 
> > on anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our 
> plates right now 
> > including much work to be done yet on the Improvements 
> implementation.
> > 
> > Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA 
> amendments, 
> > or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a 
> > significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal 
> would have to 
> > agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to 
> agree to them 
> > early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of 
> > incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have 
> > stalled unless the amendments move forward.
> > 
> > As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further 
> > policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will 
> get something 
> > in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns 
> > raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for 
> further work on 
> > a schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other 
> important work 
> > we are doing - improvements, registration abuse, 
> post-expiry deletes, 
> > transfers, etc.
> > 
> > I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the 
> > proposed amendments and support this motion.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > ===== Motion =====
> > 
> > Whereas:
> > 
> > The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been 
> amended since 
> > May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process 
> > related to amending the RAA, including several public 
> comment periods 
> > and consultations;
> > 
> > The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and 
> > enforcement tools for ICANN;
> > 
> > The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as 
> > quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if 
> > approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
> > 
> > Resolve:
> > 
> > The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in 
> > 
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16de
> > c08.pdf and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
> > 
> > The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the 
> amendments 
> > further and identify those that the community believes could be 
> > further revised through PDP processes or through additional 
> changes to 
> > the RAA that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>