Re: [council] Alternative RAA Motion

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

There is apparently some confusion whether I submitted this motion as 
a position supported by ALAC or At-Large.
I thought the wording was clear, but since it obviously was not, I 
will clarify.
I submitted this motion on my own behalf, not because I was 
advocating it, but because I volunteered at the last Council meeting 
to work with Chuck to craft a motion which embodied my understanding 
of the options presented by Kurt Pritz. When Chuck did not feel 
comfortable presenting this action, in consultation with Avri, we 
decided that both of us would table our motions (mine in case anyone 
wanted to formally propose it since I have no rights to do this).
Following the Cairo meeting, it became obvious that some At-Large 
people felt very uncomfortable accepting the complete set of proposed 
RAA amendments. We asked for a direct briefing by Kurt or other staff 
to review the options (similar to what was presented to the GNSO in 
Cairo). Unfortunately, I understand that staff were not available and 
it has not yet happened.
Alan


At 11/12/2008 11:48 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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.