RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and
possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called
picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as
defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars
if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have 
> questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented.
> 
> The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP 
> is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules 
> into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in 
> on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change, 
> ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to 
> sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still 
> some that have not).
> 
> Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives 
> in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be 
> on board)?  Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented 
> in a more timely manner?
> 
> Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will 
> be obliged to pass on to their resellers?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at 
> >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it 
> >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement 
> >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any 
> >opposition from other SGs or Cs.
> >
> >Tim