RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motion

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

That would not satisfy the definition of consensus policy we have now.

Chuck


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

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     GNSO Council
Subject:        [council] Alternative RAA Motion


Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion.

My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck 
had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN 
General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package of 
RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the 
Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two steps 
outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread consultation, 
which they deemed to have already been done, and following GNSO 
ratification, Board approval. For any other package of amendments, a 
full-blown current PDP would be required (presumably for the aspects 
of the RAA which are within GNSO scope).

Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel 
comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process and 
suggested the motion that he posted today.

As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to 
mine, but with additional delay.

I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case 
someone else chooses to make it.

I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some 
At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this 
package should be approved, given that there were some terms that 
were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's 
ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine 
whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have 
the result in time for the GNSO meeting.

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

Whereas:
- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to 
amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
- The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally 
thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
- It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that 
implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level 
vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel.

Resolve:
The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends 
to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy.

and presuming this motion passes, a second motion:

Whereas:
- The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed 
by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy;
- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required;

Resolve:
The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to 
review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments 
not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal 
of how the GNSO Council can proceed.

Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought 
it cleaner to separate them.