<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion
Thanks Mary
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 16:09
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, in relation to the motion I'd proposed, my
understanding is that the word "improvements" refers to the substance of the
changes that may end up in the RAA as a result of negotiations and within the
topics identified by the WG; the word "amendments" refers to the form in which
those changes are made (e.g. as deletions of existing language, additions of
new language/clauses, revisions of existing language etc.)
That was my understanding from the WG Final Report and is the sense
used in my current and, I believe, Kristina's December motion.
Hope that helps,
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: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/9/2011 5:12 AM
Subject: AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion
Kristina and Mary,
just for my understanding since I haven't been deeply involved in the matter:
"improvements" or "amendments" to the RAA means the same item?
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 03:38
An: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Betreff: [council] Contingent RAA Motion
All,
I would like to propose an RAA motion that recommends that Staff adopt
an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on
Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Process B
was proposed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group members of the Drafting Team.
I am hopeful that the amended process ("Process B+") is an acceptable
compromise. As you will see from the final Whereas clause, this motion is
contingent on the failure of the motion Mary has just introduced (and that I
have seconded), and will be voted upon only if that motion fails.
Safe travels to San Francisco.
K
-*-
Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on
Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
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, a GNSO Council motion recommending that 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 did not pass;
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the
process specified as Process B 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.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended
version of the process specified as Process B 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. As amended herein, Process B entails:
1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is
sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any topics that
would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment.
This step shall be completed not later than sixty (60) days after the date of
this resolution.
2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the
first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in Step
1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate
their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium Priority topics
described in the Final Report.
3. Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in
Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of ICANN Staff
and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).
4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written
reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports
shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text
agreed upon by the Negotiating Group. The monthly report shall identify (a)
topics identified in the Final Report as High or Medium Priority and that were
not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus policy development; and (b)
proposed amendments put forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or
Advisory Committee (collectively, the ?Rejected Topics and Amendments?), if
any, that have been rejected by the Negotiating Group.
5. The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and
continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary;
provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for
public comment not later than September 17, 2012.
6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the
Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the
new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the
new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed
written explanation, approved by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder
Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and
Amendments.
7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA,
consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A
Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA.
8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board
for approval.
9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is
sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for
reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be
initiated by ICANN immediately.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|