<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"><!-- converted from rtf -->
<STYLE>.EmailQuote {
PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1pt; BORDER-LEFT: #800000 2px solid
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Segoe UI">
<DIV>Hi Wolf-Ulrich, in relation to the motion I'd proposed, my understanding is that the word "improvements" refers to the substance of the changes that may end up in the RAA as a result of negotiations and within the topics identified by the WG; the word "amendments" refers to the form in which those changes are made (e.g. as deletions of existing language, additions of new language/clauses, revisions of existing language etc.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That was my understanding from the WG Final Report and is the sense used in my current and, I believe, Kristina's December motion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hope that helps,</DIV>
<DIV>Mary<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Professor of Law</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</EM></DIV>
<ADDRESS>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Two White Street</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Concord, NH 03301</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>USA</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Email: <A href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Webpage: <A href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</A></ADDRESS>
<ADDRESS>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></ADDRESS>>>> </DIV>
<TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" border=0 bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 7px">
<TABLE style="FONT: 9pt Segoe UI" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD><KnobenW@telekom.de></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD><krosette@cov.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>3/9/2011 5:12 AM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=109150410-09032011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Kristina and Mary,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=109150410-09032011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=109150410-09032011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>just for my understanding since I haven't been deeply involved in the matter: "improvements" or "amendments" to the RAA means the same item?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --><BR>
<P><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">Best regards</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=de><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">Wolf-Ulrich</FONT></SPAN> </P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=de class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>Von:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>Im Auftrag von </B>Rosette, Kristina<BR><B>Gesendet:</B> Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 03:38<BR><B>An:</B> 'council@gnso.icann.org'<BR><B>Betreff:</B> [council] Contingent RAA Motion <BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT size=2 face="Arial, sans-serif">
<DIV>All,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would like to propose an RAA motion that recommends that Staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Process B was proposed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group members of the Drafting Team. I am hopeful that the amended process ("Process B+") is an acceptable compromise. As you will see from the final Whereas clause, this motion is contingent on the failure of the motion Mary has just introduced (and that I have seconded), and will be voted upon only if that motion fails.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Safe travels to San Francisco.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>K</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-*-</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 18pt"><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"><BR>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">8. If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif">RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face="Arial, sans-serif"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>