[council] Alternative RAA Motion

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I thought that what had been explained to us was that while this did  
not meet the current by-laws definition of  consensus policy, it does  
meet the contractual requirements in the RAA agreement.

This understanding needs to be confirmed by legal counsel.

a.

On 11 Dec 2008, at 17:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> That would not satisfy the definition of consensus policy we have now.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> Sent:   Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     GNSO Council
> Subject:        [council] Alternative RAA Motion
>
>
> Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion.
>
> My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck
> had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN
> General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package of
> RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the
> Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two steps
> outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread consultation,
> which they deemed to have already been done, and following GNSO
> ratification, Board approval. For any other package of amendments, a
> full-blown current PDP would be required (presumably for the aspects
> of the RAA which are within GNSO scope).
>
> Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel
> comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process and
> suggested the motion that he posted today.
>
> As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to
> mine, but with additional delay.
>
> I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case
> someone else chooses to make it.
>
> I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some
> At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this
> package should be approved, given that there were some terms that
> were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's
> ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine
> whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have
> the result in time for the GNSO meeting.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Whereas:
> - ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
> amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);
> - The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally
> thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;
> - It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that
> implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level
> vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel.
>
Council
>
>
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends
> to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy.
>
> and presuming this motion passes, a second motion:
>
> Whereas:
> - The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed
> by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy;
> - There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are  
> required;
>
> Resolve:
> The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to
> review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments
> not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal
> of how the GNSO Council can proceed.
>
> Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought
> it cleaner to separate them.
>
>