RE: [council] A few comments on RAA amendments

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck, I said "Council members" -- a majority of us did not vote in favor
of the amendments package.  It is further objectionable that registrars have
had weighted voting on this issue.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:54 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kurt Pritz; GNSO Council
Cc: Mike Zupke
Subject: RE: [council] A few comments on RAA amendments


One important correction Mike:  A majority of Council voted in favor of the
amendments; there just was not a supermajority as needed in the RAA.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:48 PM
> To: 'Kurt Pritz'; 'GNSO Council'
> Cc: 'Mike Zupke'
> Subject: RE: [council] A few comments on RAA amendments
> 
> 
> Thanks Kurt.  It is a crazy idea to incent registrars to 
> accept changes that they have unilaterally negotiated with 
> Staff.  Yet another win-win... for the registrars only.  
> 
> Your suggestions appear to ignore the majority of the Council 
> members that voted against the RAA package, generally on the 
> basis that it should be revised with input from Council.  So 
> why were we asked in the first place?
> 
> Why is it not an equally viable path as I have suggested?  
> Namely, let's form a group to agree which of the amendments 
> have full consensus, which might quickly get full consensus, 
> and which need work.  Those that need work can be set on a 
> path to completion, and the others can be adopted by the 
> Board, imposed on registrars upon renewal, and meanwhile 
> adopted voluntarily by the reputable registrars.
> 
> In sum, I do not accept many of the assumptions of this note, 
> and look forward to further discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Cc: Mike Zupke
> Subject: [council] A few comments on RAA amendments
> 
> 
> Council Members:
> 
> Some members of the GNSO Council have requested clarification 
> about the procedures available to ICANN to implement an 
> amended Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) absent 
> two-thirds approval by the GNSO. I thought it might be 
> helpful to provide some writing on this even though we are 
> just before the Council meeting. This can also be described 
> during the meeting given that most will not have time to read 
> and consider this before the meeting.
> 
> In the "GNSO Briefing Paper on Proposed RAA Amendments" 
> provided to the GNSO Council on 29 October 2008 (see 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05617.
> html), two possible adoption paths were described for amending RAA:
> 
>  
> 1. The RAA includes a provision for the adoption of changes 
> that can be incorporated in a new contract that can be made 
> mandatory for all registrars upon renewal. Specifically, RAA 
> Subsection 5.4 details the process for RAA renewal and 
> substitution of revised forms of the RAA, and sets forth a 
> path that includes undertaking a consensus process as set 
> forth in RAA Subsection 4.3. (The full text of RAA 
> Subsections 5.4 and 4.3 are reprinted in Appendix
> I.) This process is similar in several respects to the 
> current GNSO policy development process, encompassing 
> community outreach and public comment, a written report and 
> supporting materials documenting areas of agreement and 
> disagreement and a recommendation adopted by at least a 
> two-thirds vote of the Council. It is expected that such a 
> consensus process would consider the set of proposed 
> amendments as a whole. Consideration of changes to the set 
> might require use of the formal GNSO PDP process.
>  
> 
>  
> 2. An alternative approach would leave the determination for 
> approving the new form of RAA with the Board. However, since 
> the consensus process described above would not be followed 
> under this approach, the new form RAA might not be imposed 
> mandatorily on registrars due to the RAA requirement.
> In order to gain acceptance under this approach, there might 
> be incentives to encourage voluntary adoption of the new 
> contract. One advantage to this approach would be that 
> adoption could proceed without waiting for a renewal cycle to 
> pass. There might be several potential incentives for 
> registrars to adopt the new form of RAA immediately upon 
> approval by the Board:
>  
> a. Recognition of those registrars agreeing to the new terms 
> with a ³higher standards² status by ICANN and the community 
> (a ³gold star² approach);
>  
> b. Fee incentives; 
>  
> c. Heightened accreditation and renewal standards going forward;
>  
> d. Community and peer support for adopting the new form RAA.
>  
> 
> Because the GNSO did not approve the proposed amendments to 
> the RAA with a two-thirds majority, the second approach 
> described above now remains as the most viable path forward. 
> Staff is currently evaluating this possibility.
> That is, the ALAC comments and recommendation and the results 
> of the GNSO vote would be forwarded to the Board. The Board 
> might consider the set of amendments for approval. This 
> approval would not make the amendments mandatory in the RAA 
> at any time and ICANN might offer incentive(s) for Registrars 
> to adopt them. Again, this path is not certain.
> 
> I hope this is helpful. I am free to discuss this on email or 
> on the phone.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Kurt
> 
> 
> 
>