<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
- From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:35:58 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac4yTfE6m4TvYrV7TEKBLB31HwIV6Q==
- Thread-topic: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
Dear all:
The IPC also opposes this untimely motion. We will follow up in due course
with additional details on the IPC's position.
Thank you,
Brian
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Partner
bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Steptoe
-------------------------------------------
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Thomas Rickert[SMTP:RICKERT@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:41:33 AM
To: Jonathan Robinson
Cc: Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA Auto forwarded by a Rule
I am happy to second the motion!
Thomas
=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0
Am 03.04.2013 um 13:27 schrieb "Jonathan Robinson"
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>
> Thanks Wendy,
>
> Technically, this just missed the deadline but personally I have no
> objections on this basis.
> Providing no objections are received, I suggest we proceed as though
> it did not miss the deadline.
>
> Do we have a second for this motion?
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> Sent: 03 April 2013 01:28
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Proposed Motion on RAA
>
>
> I'd like to propose the following motion for the Beijing meeting
> (resending from the correct address):
>
> Whereas the most recently posted draft Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement
> (RAA) has raised serious concerns of policy among most of the
> stakeholder groups in the GNSO [see Minutes of March call];
>
> Whereas ICANN negotiators have held it out as a blocker to the
> implementation of the New gTLD Program;
>
> Resolved, Council recommends that ICANN permit Registrars to extend
> the rights and obligations in the current RAA and its renewals to new
> gTLDs until such time as the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the
> policy changes in any proposed new RAA.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel,
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet &
> Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School
> Information Society Project http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|