ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:52:51 -0700
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.14.14

The process of developing these amendments has been going on for well
over a year. There have been open public discussions at the ICANN
meetings. The amendments have been posted on ICANN's website for
comment. 

The amendments are a positive step forward in addressing the concerns
raised after the Registerfly de-accreditation. There is no reason not to
approve them, unless you would prefer many more months in PDPs with no
guarantee that you would come out with anything better. And in fact, it
would be arguable whether some of the changes agreed to would even be in
scope for a PDP.

Approving these amendments in no way prohibits additional policy
development (within the picket fence). The Staff is simply trying to use
a provision in the RAA that allows for these amendments to be adopted
this way so we can try to get them in force as soon as possible. 

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, December 13, 2008 10:12 am
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


One thing that would help me on this issue is to know which, if any, of
the proposed amendments are not supported by Councilors.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In looking at this, I think we may have least options - 
> especially since we have a motion on the floor.
> 
> If the motion is voted down and the board support the GNSO's 
> position, then the after effect could be somewhat as you 
> describe, possible requiring a PDP process. This would need 
> to be discussed with the Legal Counsel.
> 
> Alternatively, an amendment to the current motion could be 
> proposed to separate the vote on the proposed changes. We 
> have precedence for considering such amendments though I 
> don't know of one that has succeeded. If such an amendment 
> were proposed and it succeed then we would need to vote on 
> each of the 4 areas separately (or the 15 separate changes 
> depending on the motion and its success).
> 
> I am not advocating ether of these measures, but offering 
> them as possibilities that the council might wish to consider.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments 
> proposed by Staff 
> > and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them 
> > wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we 
> do that? In 
> > that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants 
> done with the 
> > RAA, and nobody else has a say.
> >
> > Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of 
> > the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have
> > full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned 
> for now? 
> > The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also 
> > lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports 
> from Staff, 
> > and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified 
> open issues. 
> > Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the 
> amendments have full 
> > consensus and could approve those, and the other 
> Constituencies will 
> > have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be 
> addressed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM
> > To: Rosette, Kristina; council@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> >
> > Yes, weighted voting would apply. Thanks, Liz
> >
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM
> > To: council@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting 
> > would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments. I 
> > don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the 
> appropriate staff 
> > person please let me know?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > K
> >
> 
> 








<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>