RE: [council] RAA Motion

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

A simple thing to confirm would be to find out if Tim's motion would
meet the requirements of the current RAA.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: Daniel Halloran
> Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>