[council] RAA amendment process

[Rosette, Kristina]

This is close enough to the reasons I abstained that I won't quibble
with it (other than to note that I do believe it was a flawed process).

I would also note that I did not believe the follow up motion was
sufficiently specific and definite and would have voted against it on
that ground. 

As for the amendment process, I did understand that it was not a
Capital-C "Consensus Policy" within the picket fence.  I, however,
thought that the entire point of going through the 2/3 majority vote
process was to avoid the piecemeal amendment-upon-renewal process.  I
haven't gone back to listen to the recording of our Thursday wrap up
session in Cairo, but that's the understanding I had after that
presentation by Kurt.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] RAA amendment process


Hi,


On 13 Jan 2009, at 08:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I just which someone on
> the Council could explain to me why we would not have been better off 
> approving the current RAA amendments as they are rather than delaying 
> them along with other possible future changes.  I haven't heard 
> anything yet that makes sense to me from a practical point of view.  
> Are there any of the proposed changes that would not be at least as 
> good as those in the existing RAA?  I understand other frustrations 
> but in my opinion they don't justify delaying some improvements any 
> further than we have to.


I too voted for the RAA amendment and to some extent have similar views
- something was better then nothing.

But,some very good reasons given by those who abstained or voted no.   
One important reason given was that they found the process flawed.   
Without agreeing that it necessarily was flawed, it is something that
you and I probably should have realized much earlier - that without
great advance work they possibly would at least appear flawed - and we
all know what is said about appearances and reality.

There is also another reason often given by people against accepting the
incomplete and imperfect  as at least some improvement, and that it that
in the long run we will satisfy ourselves with the incomplete
- there is often nothing so permanent as a temporay solution.  And this
can hold despite the fact that we had a follow-up motion indicating we
should continue the work.  This is one reason I have started sometimes
putting the 'continue to work motions'  before policy decision vote.

Another reason some may have taken for voting against, was the very
nature of the implementation.  Again we all should have understood that
this was an issue of amending contracts at renewal time and not a
consensus policy within the picket fence, much earlier in the process.  
Though I am sure that some on the council did understand. As chair and
v-chair together with the policy staff, we should have realized there
was a gap or difference in understanding the implications of a contract
amendment and should have brought it into the light earlier.

At this point, the question does become:  What do we, as a council, wish
to do next about the RAA?  Are we at the point where we need an issues
report to try and take us back to ground 0.  Can we put together a PDP
that will recommend consensus policy changes where that is the
legitimate course and that recommends contract changes in place outside
the range of consensus policy.  Can an issues report be written that
makes these categories and which issues belong in which category clear
to the council and community?

Another thing we obviously need to know is the implication for the
amendments given the council not having approved them by a  
supermajoriy.  E.g. are some registrars likely to adopt them anyway?   
Can they do so if they wish - assuming the RrC believes they are good
amendments?  What recourse does the board have at this point?

thanks
a.