[council] RAA Motion

[Avri Doria]

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 at verisign.com>
> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 10:45 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>, "Council GNSO"
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> 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 at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at verisign.com>
>> Date: Thu, December 11, 2008 9:33 am
>> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>, "Council GNSO"
>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> I would accept either or both as a frendly amendment
>> Kristina. I apparently misunderstood.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette at cov.com]
>> 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 at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>