RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

To be clear, the only reason the last RAA revisions were done that way
is because Registrars agreed to it. There should be no confusion between
Consensus Policy issues and amendments to the RAA that do not fall with
those issues. We maintain that the RAA cannot be otherwise amended
without Registrar approval. But I hope we don't let that argument derail
what we are trying to do here.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 9:38 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Further to my last note, in a discussion with the PDP-WT, I was 
> reminded that the RAA language allows the RAA picket fence issues to 
> be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the GNSO and then Board ratification. 
> That is in fact how the last RAA revision was done. But I thought 
> that there had been a general belief that in the future, the PDP 
> process would be used.
> 
> So I guess I over-reacted to Tim's initial note. If all parties agree 
> that the RAA fast path is still valid, there is not an issue.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 14/09/2011 07:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 
> >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