<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [council] Alternative RAA Motion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>That would not satisfy the definition of consensus policy we have now.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Alan Greenberg [<A HREF="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: GNSO Council<BR>
Subject: [council] Alternative RAA Motion<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Chick and I volunteered to work on the motion.<BR>
<BR>
My understand from the briefing that Kurt Pritz gave in Cairo (Chuck<BR>
had not been at that meeting) was that based on the opinion of ICANN<BR>
General Counsel, the way (and only way) to get the current package of<BR>
RAA amendments implemented as a consensus policy would be for the<BR>
Council to approve the package by a 66% majority. The other two steps<BR>
outlined in the current agreement were wide-spread consultation,<BR>
which they deemed to have already been done, and following GNSO<BR>
ratification, Board approval. For any other package of amendments, a<BR>
full-blown current PDP would be required (presumably for the aspects<BR>
of the RAA which are within GNSO scope).<BR>
<BR>
Based on this, I drafted the resolutions below. Chuck did not feel<BR>
comfortable proposing a vote which bypassed the Bylaw PDP process and<BR>
suggested the motion that he posted today.<BR>
<BR>
As I read Kurt's statements, Chuck's motion will ultimately lead to<BR>
mine, but with additional delay.<BR>
<BR>
I do not have the rights to make a motion, but I offer this in case<BR>
someone else chooses to make it.<BR>
<BR>
I did not post this until today, because following Cairo, some<BR>
At-Large people had stated that they were not at all sure that this<BR>
package should be approved, given that there were some terms that<BR>
were they felt were less than advantageous. Following yesterday's<BR>
ALAC meeting, we are taking an online vote of the ALAC to determine<BR>
whether we are indeed recommending adoption or not. I hope to have<BR>
the result in time for the GNSO meeting.<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Whereas:<BR>
- ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to<BR>
amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);<BR>
- The community has arrived at a set of amendments that are generally<BR>
thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA;<BR>
- It is the opinion of ICANN legal counsel and the ICANN Board that<BR>
implementation of RAA amendments requires a consensus policy level<BR>
vote (>66%) of the GNSO Counsel.<BR>
<BR>
Resolve:<BR>
The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA amendments and recommends<BR>
to the Board that they be adopted as a Consensus Policy.<BR>
<BR>
and presuming this motion passes, a second motion:<BR>
<BR>
Whereas:<BR>
- The GNSO Counsel has recommended that the RAA amendments developed<BR>
by the ICANN community be adopted as a Consensus Policy;<BR>
- There is a belief that additional amendments to the RAA are required;<BR>
<BR>
Resolve:<BR>
The GNSO Council will strike a Working Group (Drafting Group?) to<BR>
review the superset of community-suggested RAA issues and amendments<BR>
not addressed in the present Consensus Policy and develop a proposal<BR>
of how the GNSO Council can proceed.<BR>
<BR>
Obviously these two motions can be combined into one, but I thought<BR>
it cleaner to separate them.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>