RE: [council] RAA Motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I likely would not support any stronger language.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Council GNSO
Subject:        RE: [council] RAA Motion


That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA
requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the
council.*


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Tim,

I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded
like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to
work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for
implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed
'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon
as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think
'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or
implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those
are certainly appropriate.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>