RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motions

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

I withdraw my RAA motion and second Tim's 1st motion below instead. I
also second Tim's second motion.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:46 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motions
> 
> 
> We are anxious to get these amendments approved and in place 
> as quickly as possible. Registrars are also generally open to 
> further discussions.
> We should we keep this as simple as possible so I propose the 
> following alternative motions:
> 
> Whereas:
> - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related 
> to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
> - The parties have arrived at a set of amendments that are 
> generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
> 
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and 
> recommends to the Board that they be adopted. 
> 
> Second motion: 
> 
> Whereas:
> - The GNSO Council has recommended that the RAA amendments 
> developed by the ICANN community be adopted;
> - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may 
> be required;
> - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the 
> dialogue about future changes to the RAA; 
> 
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council calls on ICANN to establish a consultative 
> process by which to review the superset of 
> community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed 
> in the present set of amendments and to work with Registrars 
> to develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in 
> the future.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 3:46 pm
> To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz 
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Staff would like to suggest the following draft language for the two
> motions being discussed:
> 
> 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 Council.
> 
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and 
> recommends to
> the Board that they be adopted.
> 
> Second motion:
> 
> Whereas:
> - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments 
> developed by
> the ICANN community be adopted;
> - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA may be
> required;
> - The Registrar Constituency is open to continuing the dialogue about
> future changes to the RAA;
> 
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council will form a Working Group to review the superset of
> community-suggested RAA issues and amendments not addressed in the
> present Consensus Policy and work with the Registrar Constituency to
> develop a procedure for proposing additional amendments in the future.
> 
> Thanks, Liz
> 
> 
> 
>