<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [council] RAA Motion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I likely would not support any stronger language.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Tim Ruiz [<A HREF="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">mailto:tim@godaddy.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:05 PM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: Council GNSO<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
That sounds fine, as long as *supports* meets the current RAA<BR>
requirement which says, *...adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the<BR>
council.*<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Tim<BR>
<BR>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am<BR>
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO"<BR>
<council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Tim,<BR>
<BR>
I would accept your changes as friendly if the resolution was worded<BR>
like this: "The GNSO Council supports the amendments and asks Staff to<BR>
work with registrars to define the most expeditious process for<BR>
implementing the agreed-to proposed amendments to the RAA." I changed<BR>
'accepts' to 'supports', deleted 'and the Council' and deleted 'as soon<BR>
as possible', the latter only because it is redundant because I think<BR>
'expeditious' covers it. I do not think that contract approvals or<BR>
implementation are in the GNSO's mission, although commenting on those<BR>
are certainly appropriate.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:50 AM<BR>
> To: Council GNSO<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Chuck,<BR>
><BR>
> If you accept the rewritten motion below as friendly, that<BR>
> would be great. If not, I submit it as an alternate motion.<BR>
> It is meant to address Kristina's concern, which I knew would<BR>
> be an issue as soon as I read it. I also feel it needs to<BR>
> more expressly state that the Council is accepting the amendments.<BR>
><BR>
> Also, I have no problem recognizing that many believe they do<BR>
> not go far enough. That has been clear all along. The goal<BR>
> was to get something in place sooner than later, that at<BR>
> least addresses some of the major concerns raised by the<BR>
> registerfly debacle, and that could be implemented quickly<BR>
> without waiting for agreements to expire, PDPs to ensue, etc.<BR>
><BR>
> But I don't agree with including the last point of your<BR>
> resolution. That may doubt occur, but his motion should stick<BR>
> to the point, and be something that all of use can vote in<BR>
> favor of. Let's just get this done and others who desire to<BR>
> can pursue the other issues separately.<BR>
><BR>
> Whereas:<BR>
><BR>
> ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related<BR>
> to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In<BR>
> response to community input via that process, ICANN Staff and<BR>
> the Registrars Constituency agreed on a set of proposed<BR>
> amendments to the Registry Registrar Agreement (RAA).<BR>
><BR>
> The Council recognizes that the amendments improve protection<BR>
> for registrants in specific areas in response to input from<BR>
> the community and provide Staff with additional enforcement<BR>
> tools, albeit many have suggested that the amendments should<BR>
> go further.<BR>
><BR>
> Resolve:<BR>
><BR>
> The GNSO Council accepts the amendments and asks Staff to<BR>
> work with registrars and the Council to define the most<BR>
> expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to proposed<BR>
> amendments to the RAA as soon as possible.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Tim<BR>
><BR>
> -------- Original Message --------<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com><BR>
> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am<BR>
> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Council GNSO"<BR>
> <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
><BR>
> I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment<BR>
> Kristina. I apparently misunderstood.<BR>
><BR>
> Chuck<BR>
><BR>
> From: Rosette, Kristina [<A HREF="mailto:krosette@cov.com">mailto:krosette@cov.com</A>]<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:14 AM<BR>
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Thanks for your work on this, Chuck. Because I do not agree<BR>
> that "there<BR>
> is strong support for the agreed-to amendments" across the<BR>
> entire ICANN<BR>
> community, I suggest that that language be removed or, alternatively,<BR>
> revised to indicate the segments of the community within<BR>
> which there is<BR>
> strong support.<BR>
><BR>
> K<BR>
><BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]<BR>
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:59 AM<BR>
> To: Council GNSO<BR>
> Subject: [council] RAA Motion<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Attached and copied below is a motion regarding the revised RAA for<BR>
> consideration of the Council in our 18 Dec meeting.<BR>
><BR>
> Chuck<BR>
><BR>
> RAA Motion for GNSO Council - 11 Dec 08<BR>
><BR>
> Whereas:<BR>
><BR>
> ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related<BR>
> to amending<BR>
> the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). In response to community<BR>
> input via that process, ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency<BR>
> agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the Registry Registrar<BR>
> Agreement (RAA). There is strong support for those agreed-to<BR>
> amendments,<BR>
> albeit many have suggested that the amendments should go further. The<BR>
> current terms in the RAA date back to 1999 and many have<BR>
> needed revision<BR>
> for years.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Resolve:<BR>
><BR>
> The GNSO Council asks Staff to work with registrars and the Council to<BR>
> define the most expeditious process for implementing the agreed-to<BR>
> proposed amendments to the RAA as soon as possible. The GNSO Council<BR>
> will form a drafting team to review the superset of proposed<BR>
> RAA issues<BR>
> and amendments not addressed in the presently proposed and agreed-to<BR>
> amendments and develop a request for an Issues Report, including clear<BR>
> identification of the policy issues that are involved.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>