ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
  • From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:35:58 -0700
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac4yTfE6m4TvYrV7TEKBLB31HwIV6Q==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA

Dear all:



The IPC also opposes this untimely motion.  We will follow up in due course 
with additional details on the IPC's position.


Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Steptoe



-------------------------------------------

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 
behalf of Thomas Rickert[SMTP:RICKERT@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:41:33 AM

To: Jonathan Robinson

Cc: Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO

Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA Auto forwarded by a Rule





I am happy to second the motion!



Thomas



=============

thomas-rickert.tel

+49.228.74.898.0



Am 03.04.2013 um 13:27 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson" 
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>

> [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<mailto: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/

>






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>