AW: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jaime, I support option B plus any additional statement outlined by
Kristina.
I've sent my comment already.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________

	Von: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Jaime Wagner -
PowerSelf
	Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 21:31
	An: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Betreff: [ispcp] ENC: Council Motions
	Wichtigkeit: Hoch
	
	

	Dear All,

	 

	I would like your comments on the RAA Amendment Motion below
that criticizes the Contracted parties Voting systematically as a block
to block any amendment to the RAA.

	 

	I'm inclined to vote for option B, but would like to hear
comments. Sorry for the short notice.

	 

	Jaime Wagner

	jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
	Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

	Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

	www.powerself.com.br <http://www.powerself.com.br/> 

	 

	De: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
	Enviada em: quinta-feira, 7 de abril de 2011 11:37
	Para: 'contact@xxxxxxxxx'; 'zahid@xxxxxxxxx';
'john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx';
'jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
	Cc: 'david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
	Assunto: Council Motions

	 

	Greetings, gentlemen!

	 

	I hope all is well with you.  

	 

	I wanted to touch base with you about the Single-character IDN
and RAA Amendment motions.

	 

	Single-character IDN:  David and I had planned to request a
deferral b/c the IPC has not had a chance to fully consider this motion.
Edmon has reached out to request that we consider otherwise b/c, if the
motion doesn't pass today, the provisions can't go in the April 15
Guidebook.  Are you all planning to vote?  In support?  I ask b/c,
depending on if you're voting (and doing so in support) and the
instructions David and I receive, we may abstain simply to allow the
vote to go forward.

	 

	RAA Amendment:  Are you all  planning to vote in support of the
motion (Process B+)?  (Copied below for your reference.)  I encourage
you to support it.  Based on my discussions with Mary, it appears that
the NCSG will also support and it would be send a very powerful message,
IMHO, if the entire NCPH voted in support.  Please let me know if you
have any questions or concerns.  

	 

	Also, the NCSG would like to read a statement after the vote and
has asked if we will support.  I've set out below Mary's original and my
suggested revision.  I realize this is very short notice, but it would
be great if it could be a house-wide statement.  (To that end, please
feel free to identify changes that you would need to see in order to
support.)

	 

	Mary's version:  "The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH)
wishes to express its disappointment at the outcome of today's vote on
the RAA Amendments, as well as its strong objection to the manner with
which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process
regarding negotiations to the RAA. Today's vote was a good faith attempt
by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based on the
Working Group's Final Report which had showed strong support by the
community for a negotiation process that would have included a limited
role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that a previous motion
which would have adopted this recommendation in full failed because of a
negative vote in the CPH. As s a result, today's motion was built from
the other alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been
crafted with the acquiescence of Registrar members of the Working Group.
The fact that this alternative, compromise motion also failed due to the
Registry and Registrar stakeholder groups in the CPH basically voting as
a bloc sends a very clear signal to the ICANN community that the CPH
does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its own
interests are at stake, and further underscores the ability of the CPH
to stymie this participatory model as well as eliminate the ability of
Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which
impact them directly."

	 

	My suggested revision:  The Non-Contracted Parties' House (NCPH)
is disappointed and concerned by the outcome of today's vote on the
process for proposing RAA Amendments, and strongly objects to the manner
with which the Contracted Parties' House (CPH) approached the process
regarding proposed further RAA amendments. Today's vote was a good faith
attempt by the NCPH to achieve a workable compromise with the CPH, based
on the Working Group's Final Report. That report documented strong
support by the community for a negotiation process that would have
included a limited role for observers. We remind the GNSO community that
a previous motion to adopt that recommendation in full failed because of
a negative vote by the CPH. Today's motion was based on the other
alternative recommended in the Final Report, which had been crafted by
Registrar members of the Working Group. The failure of this alternative,
compromise motion due to the entire CPH voting as a bloc signals that
CPH does not support ICANN's multi-stakeholder consensus model where its
own interests are at stake, underscores the CPH's ability to gridlock
the multi-stakeholder model, and effectively eliminates the ability of
Internet users and registrants to have a say in fundamental issues which
impact them directly. 

	We wish to remind the Registrar Stakeholder Group that the
constituencies making up the NCPH approved the prior RAA amendments in
2009 only after the Registrar Constituency agreed to "to participate on
a good faith basis on anticipated next steps" in developing a process
for considering further RAA amendments. The wholesale rejection by the
Registrar Stakeholder Group of two potential ways forward, one of which
is modeled on a proposal by registrar personnel, and the refusal to
propose other alternatives is wholly inconsistent with the stated
commitment to participate on a good faith basis. While we hope that the
Registrar Constituency did not intentionally mislead us in 2009, we are
left with no other explanation.

	 

	K

	 

	-*-

	 

	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.