RE: [council] RAA Motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that would be
great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion. It is meant to
address Kristina's concern, which I knew would be an issue as soon as I
read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly state that the Council
is accepting the amendments. 

Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do not go far
enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get something in
place sooner than later, that at least addresses some of the major
concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and that could be
implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to
ensue, etc.

But I don't agree with including the last point of your resolution. That
may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the point, and be
something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get this done
and others who desire to can pursue the other issues separately.

Whereas:

ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community
input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency
agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar
Agreement (RAA). 

The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for
registrants in specific areas in response to input from the community
and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools, albeit many have
suggested that the amendments should go further.

Resolve:

The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to work with
registrars and the Council to define the most expeditious process for
implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as
possible. 



Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment Kristina.  I
apparently misunderstood.
 
Chuck

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion



Thanks for your work on this, Chuck.  Because I do not agree that "there
is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the entire ICANN
community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively,
revised to indicate the segments of the community within which there is
strong support.
 
K

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] RAA Motion



Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for
consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting.
 
Chuck
 
RAA Motion for GNSO Council – 11 Dec 08
 
Whereas:
 
ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community
input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency
agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar
Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to amendments,
albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The
current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have needed revision
for years.

 
Resolve:
 
The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to
define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to
proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council
will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed RAA issues
and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to
amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear
identification of the policy issues that are involved.