ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments

  • To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:47:08 +0100
  • In-reply-to: <9F20564EDAF645878A19E2590105E050@HPLAPTOP>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <0D90EA2973CC428FA7C2417E8F6F609D@HPLAPTOP> <1235200453.6478.32.camel@bower> <1235301261.6478.126.camel@bower> <9F20564EDAF645878A19E2590105E050@HPLAPTOP>
  • Reply-to: avri@xxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


This wording changes does help clarify the situation for me.



On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 12:46 -0800, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> Hi Avri,
> Yes, that is my assumption.  How about this clause to replace the one you
> copy below?
> Whereas, the Council seeks to determine which of the proposed amendments
> (agreed between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency) are
> non-contentious, and then consider next steps as to those non-contentious,
> proposed amendments.
> 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: Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:14 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
> Mike,
> I am wondering, to what extent this is true:
> > 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.
> I do not believe we have made a decision that we "wish to approve the
> non-contentious ...".  Would support of this motion in some sense imply
> that this was the case?  I do not believe that the whereas statement in
> a motion should determine the future action of the council. If this is
> what the council supports after all viewpoints have been heard, then we
> should make such a decision specifically.  It should also be noted, that
> I do not believe that such a decision would have any binding effect on
> the Board but would only serve as an advisory in their decision making
> unless we initiated a PDP on issues deemed within the picket fence based
> on the outcome of the WG and an ensuing issues report.
> My assumption is that this working group, if formed, would discuss the
> four issues you have outlined and make a recommendation to council and
> that this discussion, conclusions and recommendations would be then be
> discussed in council.  At that point, the council would need to decide
> what it wished to do with those recommendations.
> Is that the same assumption you have?
> thanks
> a.

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