[council] Motion re RAA Amendments
icann at rodenbaugh.com
Sun Feb 22 23:00:36 UTC 2009
Yes, that is my assumption. How about this clause to replace the one you
Whereas, the Council seeks to determine which of the proposed amendments
(agreed between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency) are
non-contentious, and then consider next steps as to those non-contentious,
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 3:14 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Motion re RAA Amendments
I am wondering, to what extent this is true:
> Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed
> amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as
> quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if
> approved then implement them as quickly as possible.
I do not believe we have made a decision that we "wish to approve the
non-contentious ...". Would support of this motion in some sense imply that
this was the case? I do not believe that the whereas statement in a motion
should determine the future action of the council. If this is what the
council supports after all viewpoints have been heard, then we should make
such a decision specifically. It should also be noted, that I do not
believe that such a decision would have any binding effect on the Board but
would only serve as an advisory in their decision making unless we initiated
a PDP on issues deemed within the picket fence based on the outcome of the
WG and an ensuing issues report.
My assumption is that this working group, if formed, would discuss the four
issues you have outlined and make a recommendation to council and that this
discussion, conclusions and recommendations would be then be discussed in
council. At that point, the council would need to decide what it wished to
do with those recommendations.
Is that the same assumption you have?
More information about the council