RE: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Wolf-Ulrich, option B.

 

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 07 April 2011 20:42
To: jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

 

Jaime, I support option B plus any additional statement outlined by
Kristina.

I've sent my comment already.

 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich

 


  _____  


Von: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 21:31
An: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions
Wichtigkeit: Hoch

Dear All,

 

I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below that criticizes
the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block to block any
amendment to the RAA.

 

I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear comments. Sorry
for the short notice.

 

Jaime Wagner

jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 

De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37
Para: 'contact@xxxxxxxxx'; 'zahid@xxxxxxxxx'; 'john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx';
'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Assunto: Council Motions

 

Greetings, gentlemen!

 

I hope all is well with you.  

 

I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN and RAA
Amendment motions.

 

Single-character IDN:  David and I had planned to request a deferral b/c the
IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion.  Edmon has reached
out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the motion doesn't pass
today, the provisions can't go in the April 15 Guidebook.  Are you all
planning to vote?  In support?  I ask b/c, depending on if you're voting
(and doing so in support) and the instructions David and I receive, we may
abstain simply to allow the vote to go forward.

 

RAA Amendment:  Are you all  planning to vote in support of the motion
(Process B+)?  (Copied below for your reference.)  I encourage you to
support it.  Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that the NCSG
will also support and it would be send a very powerful message, IMHO, if the
entire NCPH voted in support.  Please let me know if you have any questions
or concerns.  

 

Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and has asked
if we will support.  I've set out below Mary's original and my suggested
revision.  I realize this is very short notice, but it would be great if it
could be a house-wide statement.  (To that end, please feel free to identify
changes that you would need to see in order to support.)

 

Mary's version:  "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) wishes to express
its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on the RAA Amendments, as
well as its strong objection to the manner with which the Contracted
Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding negotiations to the
RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable
compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's Final Report which had
showed strong support by the community for a negotiation process that would
have included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community
that a previous motion which would have adopted this recommendation in full
failed because of a negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion
was built from the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which
had been crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working
Group. The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to
the Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as
a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH does
not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own
interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH to
stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of Internet
users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which impact them
directly."

 

My suggested revision:  The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH) is
disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the process for
proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner with which the
Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process regarding proposed
further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith attempt by the NCPH to
achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the Working Group's
Final Report. That report documented strong support by the community for a
negotiation process that would have included a limited role for observers.
We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion to adopt that
recommendation in full failed because of a negative vote by the CPH. Today's
motion was based on the other alternative recommended in the Final Report,
which had been crafted by Registrar members of the Working Group. The
failure of this alternative, compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting
as a bloc signals that CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder
consensus model where its own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's
ability to gridlock the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates
the ability of Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental
issues which impact them directly. 

We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the constituencies
making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in 2009 only after the
Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on a good faith basis on
anticipated next steps" in developing a process for considering further RAA
amendments. The wholesale rejection by the Registrar Stakeholder Group of
two potential ways forward, one of which is modeled on a proposal by
registrar personnel, and the refusal to propose other alternatives is wholly
inconsistent with the stated commitment to participate on a good faith
basis. While we hope that the Registrar Constituency did not intentionally
mislead us in 2009, we are left with no other explanation.

 

K

 

-*-

 

Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy
consultative process initiated by ICANN;

Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO
Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large
Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA;
specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and
responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional
potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable;

Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published
its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the
GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;

Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its
resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant
Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final
Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with
Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities
Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section
3.15 of the RAA;

Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the process
specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with
respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report
did not pass;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the
process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form of
RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the
Final Report.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended
version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop
a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics
described in the
Final Report. As amended herein, Process B entails:

1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is sent
to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that
would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract
amendment. This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after
the date of this resolution.

2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the first
ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step 1,
to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate
their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics
described in the Final Report.

3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in Step
2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff
and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).

4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written reports
monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall
include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed
upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a) topics
identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were not
determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b)
proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or
Advisory Committee (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and Amendments"), if
any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group.

5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and continues
negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary;
provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted
for public comment not later than September 17, 2012.

6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the Registrar
Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA
is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new
RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed
written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder
Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics
and Amendments.

7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA,
consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A
Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.

8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for
approval.

9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent
back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration.
Repeat from step 7.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be
initiated by ICANN immediately.