[council] RAA amendment process

[Tim Ruiz]

Tony,

The RrC participated in a way forward for over a year. The end result
was the set of amendments that were just rejected by the Council. I
don't see any incentive for registrars to get back into an overall
discussion of the RAA.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] RAA amendment process
From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, January 13, 2009 10:40 am
To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council at gnso.icann.org>


Avri

As one of those who voted against the amendments you've articulated the
reasons why perfectly. I couldn't agree more. 

As for the way forward, I wouldn't want to go back to zero even though
there
were too many vague areas before. At least that's now been recognised,
although where we go from here isn't clear either. Answers to the
questions
you raise at the end should help us decide but I'd be interested to hear
a
view on the preferred way forward from the RrC. 

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 13 January 2009 16:06
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.