RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Of course this cannot be accepted as 'friendly amendments' and is entirely
different from the motion I made.  It is not proper for you to introduce
this as amendments to my motion.  However a substantially similar motion was
already voted upon several meetings ago, including electronic ballots, so
what is the purpose of reintroducing it now?


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 Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:24 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion


I second the amendment.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:16 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Alternate RAA motion
> 
> 
> 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-amendme
> nts-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-16de
> > c08.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.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>