RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment

Sorry Stephane, didn't mean to jump the gun on this, I was just getting
concerned about timing. I agree, requesting an amendment makes more
sense.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 26, 2009 1:15 pm
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks Tim, but I thought our intent was for this to be an amendment to
Mike's motion, which I think makes more sense. In any event, I put
forward the following as an amendment to Mike's motion:

Whereas:

The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since
May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process
related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods
and consultations; 

The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and
enforcement tools for ICANN;

The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly
as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved
then implement them as quickly as possible.

Resolve:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pd
f
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.

The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments
further and identify those that the community believes could be further
revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA
that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.


Thanks.

Stéphane



Le 25/02/09 23:18, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I am making the motion below. There
> is no question that the Council can discuss, debate, draft recs on
> anything it chooses. However, we have a lot on our plates right now
> including much work to be done yet on the Improvements implementation.
> 
> Whatever you think of the process that resulted in the RAA amendments,
> or whether they go far enough, the amendments themselves are a
> significant step forward. Any registrar up for renewal would have to
> agree to them. A number of other registrars are ready to agree to them
> early. And discussions with Staff had indicated the possibility of
> incentives to get other registrars to agree early, but those have
> stalled unless the amendments move forward.
> 
> As said before, approving the amendments does not prohibit further
> policy work on the issues. Passing the motion below will get something
> in place to at least address some portion of the community concerns
> raised by the failure of RegisterFly, and provide for further work on a
> schedule that the Council sees fit based on the other important work we
> are doing - improvements, registration abuse, post-expiry deletes,
> transfers, etc.
> 
> I ask that the Councilors and their constituents reconsider the proposed
> amendments and support this motion.
> 
> Tim
> 
> ===== Motion =====
> 
> Whereas:
> 
> The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since
> May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process
> related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods
> and consultations;
> 
> The proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and
> enforcement tools for ICANN;
> 
> The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly
> as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved
> then implement them as quickly as possible.
> 
> Resolve:
> 
> The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
> and recommends to the Board that they be adopted.
> 
> The GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments
> further and identify those that the community believes could be further
> revised through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA
> that may not fall within scope of a formal PDP process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>