RE: [council] RAA amendment process

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

I probably was unclear in my earlier statement so let me try to clarify.
I understand the concerns that several have communicated with regard to
process, poor communication, etc. with regard to the RAA amendments. I
like you also did not properly understand how the amendments would be
implemented until a day before the Council meeting; in fact, in our
preparatory call for the Council meeting, I stated that it was very
important that the Council be made aware of what I had just learned
earlier that day and that did indeed happen in the Council call.  That
undoubtedly created more dissatisfaction but it is information that
everyone needed.

I probably looked at this issue too simplisticly:  1) As far as I could
personally tell, all of the proposed amendments were better than or
equal to what is in the RAA now; 2) no one provided evidence that any
one of the amendments would be a problem if it was implemented; 3)
therefore, in my view we would be better off approving them now so that
at least some improvements would happen with less of a delay and we
could proceed expeditiously on new work to deal with additional concerns
as applicable, including those that relate to some changes that didn't
go far enough for some.  Now we have further delays for changes for
which it seemed to me we had no direct disagreement, but instead were
mostly dissatisfied with the process.

Oh well, we are where we are.  I thought if would have been good to be a
little further along.  Maybe there are a few of the proposed amendments
that are non-policy related that Staff can implement without GNSO
action.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:58 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA amendment process
> 
> 
> I made an even stronger statement, that after listening to 
> the Cairo briefing and a more recent ALAC briefing, it seems 
> to me that the statements at that time were that GNSO 
> approval was the short-cut around amendment-at-renewal. 
> Specifically, this meeting was the first time that ICANN 
> staff made reference to RAA section 5.4. Prior to that, the 
> only person that had mentioned it (within my hearing) was 
> Danny Younger, and the reply from staff seemed to be that 
> this clause only applied to renewals (which we were not 
> talking about). And I seem to remember both Tim Ruiz and Tim 
> Cole both saying that we want to take quick action because of 
> the issues raised by RegisterFly - perhaps I misunderstood.
> 
> I think that before the GNSO can take any further action, we 
> need a clear primer from ICANN services and legal staff on 
> how various aspects of the RAA can be amended:
> - under what conditions/processes can the RAA be amended on 
> renewal (specifically does ICANN have any rights to 
> unilaterally make changes);
> - under what conditions can the RAA be amended on the fly 
> (within picket fence, outside, what voting thresholds for the 
> GNSO/Board).
> I am sure that there are other variants as well.
> 
> We need clarity on the rules of the game before we can decide 
> on one or more paths.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> At 13/01/2009 12:03 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 
> >As for the amendment process, I did understand that it was not a 
> >Capital-C "Consensus Policy" within the picket fence.  I, however, 
> >thought that the entire point of going through the 2/3 majority vote 
> >process was to avoid the piecemeal amendment-upon-renewal 
> process.  I 
> >haven't gone back to listen to the recording of our Thursday wrap up 
> >session in Cairo, but that's the understanding I had after that 
> >presentation by Kurt.
> >
> >K
> 
> 
>