RE: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

Thank you.

and you, of course, right about the wording change.

a.


On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 12:46 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Thanks Avri.  I consider all of these friendly amendments, but would go with
> 'rough consensus of the Working Group' since the WG can't determine whether
> anything would have super-majority support of Council.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> www.rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:14 PM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mike, 
> 
> I would like to suggest 3 amendments, hopefully friendly, to this
> motion:
> 
> 1.  In the third Whereas Statement:
> 
> replace:  Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to
> support the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those
> members support many of the proposed amendments.
> 
> with:   Whereas, the GNSO Council did not reach  super-majority support
> for the full set of proposed amendments as drafted though many members
> support many of the proposed amendments.
> 
> 2. In the RESOLVED section, replace the use of 'full consensus' with
> either 'rough consensus' or 'super-majority support'
> 
> 3. Add a line to the bottom of the motion stating:
> 
> The working group established by this motion will work according to the
> process defined in interim [working group process].
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 18:18 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception, and there is
> > widespread community support for amendments to various provisions of
> > the RAA.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have agreed on a
> > set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that set of amendments has
> > been considered for approval by the GNSO Council.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to support
> > the set of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those members
> > support many of the proposed amendments.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed
> > amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as
> > quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if
> > approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > RESOLVED:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene and
> > discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to Council
> > within 30 days with answers to the following questions:
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 1. Which of the proposed amendments have full consensus as drafted? 
> > 
> > 2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if
> > drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain
> > full consensus? 
> > 
> > 3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have consensus? 
> > 
> > 4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed
> > set of Amendments? 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
>