RE: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Wendy,

Technically, this just missed the deadline but personally I have no
objections on this basis.
Providing no objections are received, I suggest we proceed as though it did
not miss the deadline.

Do we have a second for this motion?

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: 03 April 2013 01:28
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA


I'd like to propose the following motion for the Beijing meeting (resending
from the correct address):

Whereas the most recently posted draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement
(RAA) has raised serious concerns of policy among most of the stakeholder
groups in the GNSO [see Minutes of March call];

Whereas ICANN negotiators have held it out as a blocker to the
implementation of the New gTLD Program;

Resolved, Council recommends that ICANN permit Registrars to extend the
rights and obligations in the current RAA and its renewals to new gTLDs
until such time as the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy changes
in any proposed new RAA.

Thanks,
--Wendy

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx +1 617.863.0613 Policy Counsel, World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society
Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/