RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Please see section 4.3.1 of the RAA:
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm

That was constructed because at the time of the original RAA no PDP
existed. Now that one does, and to the extent that it meets these
minimum requirements, a PDP may result in Consensus Policy. At some
point this section of the RAA may need to be updated, but right now,
with the exception of the report described in part (c), we feel our
motion would suffice to create Consensus Policy if approved by a
supermajority of the Council and then upheld by a vote of the Board. For
the report, the information exists but we may need to request  Staff to
assist in pulling it together.

That doesn't answer your question completely, but our focus is on the
motion immediately at hand as it pertains to establishing Consensus
Policy. We realize that some may have concerns about process here, and
we are certainly sensitive to that and open to considering a full PDP if
deemed necessary.

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:29 pm
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it 
> being within the picket fence.
> 
> However, I thought that the only way that something could become a 
> Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases 
> such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" 
> PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to 
> date, there is no such process on the books.
> 
> Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and
> >possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called
> >picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as
> >defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars
> >if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well.
> >
> >
> >Tim
> >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm
> > > To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have
> > > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented.
> > >
> > > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP
> > > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules
> > > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in
> > > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change,
> > > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to
> > > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still
> > > some that have not).
> > >
> > > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives
> > > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be
> > > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented
> > > in a more timely manner?
> > >
> > > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will
> > > be obliged to pass on to their resellers?
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at
> > > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it
> > > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement
> > > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any
> > > >opposition from other SGs or Cs.
> > > >
> > > >Tim