<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: AW: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
- To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: AW: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:22:20 -0700
- Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.6.03
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>What Wendy is proposing is not just an amendment, it is a
whole new motion. In any event, we have no way to review with our SG at this
point.<BR></div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: AW:
[council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion<BR>From: <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date: Wed,
October 26, 2011 10:11 am<BR>To: <<a
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, <<a
href="mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Cc: <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR><BR>Tim,<BR><BR>Do
I understand you going against the - existing - motion whatever amendments may
be suggested?<BR>Maybe I misinterprete what "unproductive rounds"
mean.<BR><BR>Kind regards<BR>Wolf-Ulrich <BR><BR><BR>-----Ursprüngliche
Nachricht-----<BR>Von: <a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]
Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz<BR>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Oktober 2011 16:55<BR>An:
Wendy Seltzer<BR>Cc: Council GNSO<BR>Betreff: RE: [council] Proposed Amendment
to RAA Motion<BR><BR><BR>Instead of getting into another round of potentally
non-productive<BR>dicussions about this motion, given the recent RrSG
announcement, can we<BR>simply agree to withdraw it and let us move on and just
le us get the<BR>work done? I do not want to see anything potentially derail it
at this<BR>point.<BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR>-------- Original Message
--------<BR>Subject: [council] Proposed Amendment to RAA Motion<BR>From: Wendy
Seltzer <<a
href="mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx";>wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date: Wed, October
26, 2011 9:42 am<BR>To: Council GNSO <<a
href="mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR><BR>Colleagues,<BR><BR>In
light of our interest in proceeding quickly to amend the RAA, I<BR>propose an
amendment to streamline process B and preserve important<BR>opportunities for
transparency and public comment.<BR>Further, as the NCUC does not support many
of the identified<BR>"high-priority items," I have removed their endorsement
from the<BR>resolveds.<BR><BR>Below I include an updated version of the
resolveds my amendment would<BR>create and a redline of the whole against the
original motion.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>--Wendy<BR><BR>RESOLVED,<BR>that the GNSO
Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of<BR>the process
specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new<BR>form of RAA. As
amended herein, Process B entails:<BR><BR>1. A 60-day public comment period
shall be open from Monday 31<BR>October, to provide members of the ICANN
community with the opportunity<BR>to give feedback on the topics described in
the Final Report, including<BR>the opportunity to raise considerations and
concerns arising since the<BR>Report was issued.<BR><BR>2. ICANN Staff will
schedule a public consultation at the ICANN<BR>public meeting in Costa Rica, to
provide members of the ICANN community<BR>with the opportunity to give further
feedback, including feedback based<BR>on comments received during the public
comment period, so as to inform<BR>the negotiations between ICANN staff and the
Registrar Stakeholder Group<BR>as a whole (the "Negotiating Group").<BR><BR>3.
Within sixty (60) days after the public consultation described<BR>in Step 2,
negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting<BR>of ICANN Staff and
the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).<BR><BR>4. The Negotiating Group
shall provide, for public comment,<BR>bimonthly written reports on the status
and progress of the<BR>negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text
under<BR>consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by
the<BR>Negotiating Group. Each bimonthly report shall identify the status
of<BR>(a)<BR>topics identified in Step 2 and that were not determined
to<BR>require consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments
put<BR>forth by any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory
Committee;<BR>and shall identify such topics, if any, that have been rejected
by<BR>the Negotiating Group (collectively, the "Rejected Topics
and<BR>Amendments").<BR><BR>5. The Negotiating Group shall review public
comments received and<BR>continue negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5
shall repeat as<BR>necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of
the new<BR>RAA must be posted for public comment not later than March
4,<BR>2013.<BR><BR>6. Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff
and the<BR>Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full
final<BR>draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.
The<BR>full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public
comment<BR>shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation,
approved<BR>by both Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets
forth<BR>the basis for the rejection of all Rejected Topics and
Amendments.<BR><BR>7. The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the
new<BR>RAA, consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft<BR>new
RAA. A Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to<BR>approve the new
RAA.<BR><BR>8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes
to<BR>Board for approval.<BR><BR>9. If the GNSO Council does not approve the
new RAA, the new RAA<BR>is sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate
feedback<BR>for reconsideration. Repeat from step 7.<BR><BR>RESOLVED FURTHER,
that the GNSO Council recommends that this<BR>process be initiated by ICANN
immediately.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>REDLINE against the current motion at<BR><<a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+2011>";>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+October+2011></a>;<BR><BR>>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;<BR>>><BR>>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;<BR>>><BR>>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;<BR>>><BR>>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;<BR>>><BR>>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;<BR>>><BR>>Whereas, a previous GNSO Council motion 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 did not pass at the GNSO Council's April 7, 2011
meeting;<BR>>><BR>>Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve a
further amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final
Report to develop a new form of RAA <BR>[[REMOVE with respect to the High and
Medium Priority topics described<BR>in the Final
Report.]]<BR>>><BR>>NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:<BR>>><BR>>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
<BR>[[REMOVE with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics
described<BR>in the Final Report.]]<BR>>As amended herein, Process B
entails:<BR><BR>[[REPLACE steps 1 and 2 with<BR>1. A 60-day public comment
period shall be open from Monday 31<BR>October, to provide members of the ICANN
community with the opportunity<BR>to give feedback on the topics described in
the Final Report, including<BR>the opportunity to raise considerations and
concerns arising since the<BR>Report was issued.<BR><BR>2. ICANN Staff will
schedule a public consultation at the ICANN<BR>public meeting in Costa Rica, to
provide members of the ICANN community<BR>with the opportunity to give further
feedback, including feedback based<BR>on comments received during the public
comment period, so as to inform<BR>the negotiations between ICANN staff and the
Registrar Stakeholder Group<BR>as a whole (the "Negotiating
Group").<BR>]]<BR><BR>>3. Within sixty (60) 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).<BR>>><BR>>4. The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public
comment, bimonthly written reports 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. Each bimonthly
report shall identify the status of (a) topics identified in <BR>[[REPLACE with
Step 2]<BR>> and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring consensus
policy<BR>> development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by any
Stakeholder<BR>> Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee; and shall
identify such<BR>> topics, if any, that have been rejected by the
Negotiating Group<BR>> (collectively, the "Rejected Topics and
Amendments").<BR>>><BR>>5. The Negotiating Group shall review public
comments received and continue 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 March 4,
2013.<BR>>><BR>>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.<BR>>><BR>>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.<BR>>><BR>>8. If the GNSO Council approves the new
RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.<BR>>><BR>>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.<BR>>><BR>>RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends
that this process be initiated by ICANN
immediately.<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|