RE: [council] RAA Motion

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can try that, but clearly, based on the past vote, there is likely an
unresolvable difference of opinion between our houses. My "friendly"
amendment would be to change it to a simple thank you to the WG and a
note to Registrars and Staff to be sure they are aware the report has
been completed for their consideration. Is that likely to be accepted as
a friendly?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:20 am
> To: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, Tim, but since a WG Report is presented to the Council for its 
> discussion/action/opinion, my point is that we need to then discuss/act/opine 
> (as appropriate). If the phrasing I chose was inappropriate, I imagine that 
> can be cured by a friendly amendment.
>  
> 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
> 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>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> 
> 
> To:
> , 
> 
> CC:
> 
> 
> Date: 
> 3/9/2011 10:12 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> Re: [council] RAA MotionThe Council should not assume responsibilities it has 
> not been given. Council can express an opinion on anything I guess, but this 
> motion is constructed as a directive.
> 
> So we can continue to make this motion and see it defeated, or we can try to 
> find a more constructive way forward.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:01:01 -0500
> Cc: 
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> 
> 
> Tim, I understand your point and know it's been made before. However, as 
> Process A received Strong Support from the WG's Sub-Team B and is classified 
> as a recommendation in the WG Final Report, I don't see how the Council can 
> responsibly ignore it without a fuller discussion.
>  
> 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
> 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>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> "Tim Ruiz" 
> 
> To:
> 
> 
> CC:
> 
> 
> Date: 
> 3/9/2011 1:43 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> RE: [council] RAA MotionAs I've tried to point out before, this is a waste of 
> time. The RAA is
> between ICANN and Registrars and only they will decide how the process
> takes place. And as was made clear to the RAA WG, Registrars will not
> engage if observers are present. All the Council should do at this point
> is thank the WG and let Registrars and Staff take from it there.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] RAA Motion
> > From: Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Tue, March 08, 2011 7:40 pm
> > To: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>