Re: [council] RAA Motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi

It is probably best to confirm this with legal counsel.

a.


On 11 Dec 2008, at 12:02, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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.