[council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)

[Gomes, Chuck]

One thing that would help me on this issue is to know which, if any, of
the proposed amendments are not supported by Councilors.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In looking at this, I think we may have least options - 
> especially since we have a motion on the floor.
> 
> If the motion is voted down and the board support the GNSO's 
> position, then the after effect could be somewhat as you 
> describe, possible requiring a PDP process.  This would need 
> to be discussed with the Legal Counsel.
> 
> Alternatively, an amendment to the current motion could be 
> proposed to separate the vote on the proposed changes.  We 
> have precedence for considering such amendments though I 
> don't know of one that has succeeded.  If such an amendment 
> were proposed and it succeed then we would need to vote on 
> each of the 4 areas separately (or the 15 separate changes 
> depending on the motion and its success).
> 
> I am not advocating ether of these measures, but offering 
> them as possibilities that the council might wish to consider.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments 
> proposed by Staff 
> > and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them 
> > wholesale?  Why are we asked to do that, and why would we 
> do that?  In 
> > that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants 
> done with the 
> > RAA, and nobody else has a say.
> >
> > Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of 
> > the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have
> > full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned 
> for now?   
> > The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also 
> > lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports 
> from Staff, 
> > and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified 
> open issues.  
> > Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the 
> amendments have full 
> > consensus and could approve those, and the other 
> Constituencies will 
> > have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be 
> addressed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > ] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:27 AM
> > To: Rosette, Kristina; council at icann.org
> > Subject: [council] RE: Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> >
> > Yes, weighted voting would apply.  Thanks, Liz
> >
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > ] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:21 AM
> > To: council at icann.org
> > Subject: [council] Voting on RAA Amendments Motion(s)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > During our wrap-up session in Cairo, I'd asked if weighted voting 
> > would apply to votes on motions relating to the RAA Amendments.  I 
> > don't believe I've received an answer yet. Could the 
> appropriate staff 
> > person please let me know?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > K
> >
> 
>