RE: [council] For consideration: RAA DIscussion Paper

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt,

There is a serious error in this document in section VI. It states that
the issues report recently approved by Council was proposed by me. As
you very well know, Councilors are elected by and represent their SG or
C, not themselves. The motion and issues report request was authored by
and comes from the RrSG. I would appreciate that correction being made
as soon as possible.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] For consideration: RAA DIscussion Paper
> From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, October 13, 2011 1:36 pm
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Dear GNSO Council Members,
>  
> I would appreciate it if you could please review the attached �Discussion 
> Paper on Next Steps to Produce a New Form of the RAA�. This paper suggests 
> possible options for consideration by the community to move the RAA amendment 
> process forward in a cooperative and timely manner.
>  
> This paper was prepared in response to a request from the Board to categorize 
> proposed amendment topics and summarize possible options for next steps. 
> 
> 
> The recent efforts by the GNSO Council to address some of the law enforcement 
> recommendations demonstrate progress and are encouraging. There are many 
> other proposals to be addressed. We believe that this paper can be useful in 
> identifying additional alternative paths. To be clear, this is not intended 
> to interrupt current work or advance ICANN Board or staff opinion in the 
> policy discussions. The paper is meant to be responsive to requests for 
> information. It is also meant to signal that there will be a high level of 
> staff support to facilitate the development of RAA amendments and any related 
> policy activities.
> 
> 
> Two additional points:  You will find that the categorization of topics is 
> not as straightforward as we all might prefer. As described in the paper, it 
> is difficult to determine whether a proposal is a policy issue or is within 
> the picket fence without considering specific amendment language. Finally, 
> the paper indicates a preference for undertaking substantive discussion now, 
> to develop specific recommendations for amendments through negotiation or 
> policy development or both. 
>  
> We hope that this Discussion Paper will encourage further dialogue in Dakar 
> with the GNSO Council, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the ICANN 
> community with regard to identifying an acceptable path forward. I am sure 
> this paper is likely to raise questions also. I think an exchange of 
> questions and answers is important to realize the full benefit of the thought 
> that went into this � a writing does not always capture or describe all the 
> ideas generated. Please direct those questions to Margie Milam, who will 
> share them with the cross-functional team that worked on this for your 
> consideration.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Kurt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt Pritz
> ICANN
> 
> 
> 4676 Admiralty Way, #330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>