[council] Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

The voting is closed on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion 
which was before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below.

The final vote is as follows.
The motion did not obtain a supermajority. 

9 Votes Against: 

Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), 
William Drake, Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each)
Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each)

Due to a misunderstanding in the process and email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot 
was received 4 hours after the ballot was scheduled to close.  As the balloting 
had not been formally closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally.

4 Abstentions: 

Philip Sheppard CBUC),  Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) 
(one vote each) (see reasons below.)

14 Votes in favour: 

Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, 
Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) 
Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes)
Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each)

Reasons for abstaining
======================
Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about the sequential approach to the 
RAA changes.

Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way the consultative process has 
been run, how the input of registrants and users has been largely ignored and 
because of the weighted voting that has been granted.

Kristina Rosette (IPC):
Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in March and June in 2007 and the 
Board's June 2007 resolution, the RAA amendment consultative process 
essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored 
their input. In addition to that fraud consultative process, the Registrar 
constituency is now being granted weighted voting on whether the amendments 
should be approved. And finally, because the highly restricted, narrow and 
limited language resulting from that flawed consultative process will render 
the majority of the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable.

Terry Davis (NCA):
I have not been part of this process long enough to take a position on this 
yet. I am still understanding all the issues associated.

Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' vote. I believe we have an 
alternative as I suggested, and have not heard any reason not to do so. We 
could have a fast track working group to determine which of these proposed 
amendments truly have consensus of the Council. There has not been any 
consultative process with the Council to find out which amendments have full 
consensus and could be adopted immediately, and could be reworded and then 
adopted quickly. But at the moment we do not have clear consensus on this 
amendment package. Then there are a bunch of open issues that are not mentioned 
in the package at all and that we need assurance will be addressed. So that is 
the reason for my 'no' vote.
...........................................................................................

Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

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 (documented in 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf) 
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org