<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Alternative RAA Motion
Hi,
I thought that what had been explained to us was that while this did
not meet the current by-laws definition of consensus policy, it does
meet the contractual requirements in the RAA agreement.
This understanding needs to be confirmed by legal counsel.
a.
On 11 Dec 2008, at 17:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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.
Council
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|