RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One can hope that some who didn't see the value of moving forward in a more 
timely manner on the amendments might now see that value.  In addition, based 
on what I have seen in the General Council's office's responses to your 
questions Mike, the effectiveness of your motion may be fairly limited.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:58 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Alternate RAA motion
> 
> 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.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>