RE: [council] RAA Motion
A simple thing to confirm would be to find out if Tim's motion would
meet the requirements of the current RAA.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: Daniel Halloran
> Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion
>
>
> Hi
>
> It is probably best to confirm this with legal counsel.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2008, at 12:02, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
> >
> > That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA
> > requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a
> two-thirds vote of
> > the
> > council.*
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am
> > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution
> was worded
> > like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and
> asks Staff to
> > work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for
> > implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA."
> I changed
> > 'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as
> > soon as possible', the latter only because it is redundant
> because I
> > think 'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract
> approvals
> > or implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on
> > those are certainly appropriate.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that
> would be
> >> great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion.
> >> It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew
> would be an
> >> issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to more expressly
> >> state that the Council is accepting the amendments.
> >>
> >> Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they
> do not go
> >> far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal was to get
> >> something in place sooner than later, that at least
> addresses some of
> >> the major concerns raised by the registerfly debacle, and
> that could
> >> be implemented quickly without waiting for agreements to
> expire, PDPs
> >> to ensue, etc.
> >>
> >> But I don't agree with including the last point of your
> resolution.
> >> That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick to the
> point, and
> >> be something that all of use can vote in favor of. Let's just get
> >> this done and others who desire to can pursue the other issues
> >> separately.
> >>
> >> Whereas:
> >>
> >> ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
> >> amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In
> response to
> >> community input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars
> >> Constituency agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the
> Registry
> >> Registrar Agreement (RAA).
> >>
> >> The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection for
> >> registrants in specific areas in response to input from
> the community
> >> and provide Staff with additional enforcement tools,
> albeit many have
> >> suggested that the amendments should go further.
> >>
> >> Resolve:
> >>
> >> The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to
> work with
> >> registrars and the Council to define the most expeditious
> process for
> >> implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA
> as soon as
> >> possible.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> >> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am
> >> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> >> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment Kristina. I
> >> apparently misunderstood.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> >> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree that
> >> "there is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the
> >> entire ICANN community, I suggest that that language be
> removed or,
> >> alternatively, revised to indicate the segments of the community
> >> within which there is strong support.
> >>
> >> K
> >>
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: [council] RAA Motion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for
> >> consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08
> >>
> >> Whereas:
> >>
> >> ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related
> >> to amending
> >> the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response
> to community
> >> input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency
> >> agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar
> >> Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to
> >> amendments,
> >> albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go
> further. The
> >> current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have
> >> needed revision
> >> for years.
> >>
> >>
> >> Resolve:
> >>
> >> The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and
> the Council
> >> to
> >> define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to
> >> proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The
> GNSO Council
> >> will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed
> >> RAA issues
> >> and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and
> agreed-to
> >> amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including
> >> clear
> >> identification of the policy issues that are involved.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>