RE: [council] RAA Motion

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Quick Question:  Is this the exact same motion as proposed in Cartagena or has 
this been modified?  If it has, can you please send a redline?

Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:41 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RAA Motion

Fellow Councilors:

I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside from the 
Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled in Cartagena:

Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to 
the RAA

Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy 
consultative process initiated by ICANN;

Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO 
Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, 
to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: 
(a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) 
develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the 
RAA on which further action may be desirable;

Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published 
its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO 
Council for improvements to the RAA;


Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 
20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and 
Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and 
recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the 
RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting 
on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations 
and proposals contained in the Final Report.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT:


RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN Staff adopt the process 
specified as Process A in the Final Report, to develop a new form of RAA with 
respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 
Process A states:

“1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this 
report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under 
consensus policy.
2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the 
Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing 
the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.
3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold 
discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), 
then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress.
4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically 
(such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make 
bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback.
5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat 
step 4 as necessary.
6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full 
final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.
7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of 
the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form.
8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate 
feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.”
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be 
initiated by ICANN immediately.

Cheers
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584