AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion

[Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]

Hi Wolf-Ulrich, in relation to the motion I'd proposed, my understanding
is that the word "improvements" refers to the substance of the changes
that may end up in the RAA as a result of negotiations and within the
topics identified by the WG; the word "amendments" refers to the form in
which those changes are made (e.g. as deletions of existing language,
additions of new language/clauses, revisions of existing language etc.)
 
That was my understanding from the WG Final Report and is the sense
used in my current and, I believe, Kristina's December motion.
 
Hope that helps,
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To:<krosette at cov.com>, <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date: 3/9/2011 5:12 AM
Subject: AW: [council] Contingent RAA Motion 
Kristina and Mary,
 
just for my understanding since I haven't been deeply involved in the
matter: "improvements" or "amendments" to the RAA means the same item?
 


Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 
 



Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2011 03:38
An: 'council at gnso.icann.org'
Betreff: [council] Contingent RAA Motion 


All,

 
I would like to propose an RAA motion that recommends that Staff adopt
an amended version of the process specified as Process B in the Final
Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement.  Process B was proposed by the Registrar Stakeholder Group
members of the Drafting Team.  I am hopeful that the amended process
("Process B+") is an acceptable compromise.  As you will see from the
final Whereas clause, this motion is contingent on the failure of the
motion Mary has just introduced (and that I have seconded), and will be
voted upon only if that motion fails.
 
Safe travels to San Francisco.
 
K
 
-*-
 
Motion to Approve an Amended Recommendation in the Final Report on
Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
 
Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the
2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a
lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN;
 
Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the
GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large
Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA;
specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and
responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify
additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may
be desirable;
 
Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team
published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and
proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;
 
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its
resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of
Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D
of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation
process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and
Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as
specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;
Whereas, a GNSO Council motion recommending that Staff adopt the
process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form
of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in
the Final Report did not pass;
 
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve an amended version of the
process specified as Process B in the Final Report to develop a new form
of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in
the Final Report.
 
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
 

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt an amended
version of the process specified as Process B in the Final Report to
develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority
topics described in the Final Report.  As amended herein, Process B
entails:
 
1. The prioritized list of topics as set forth in the Final Report is
sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN Staff for identification of any
topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA
contract amendment.  This step shall be completed not later than sixty
(60) days after the date of this resolution.  
 
2. ICANN Staff will schedule a public consultation, to be held at the
first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in
Step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity
to articulate their support of and/or objection to the High and Medium
Priority topics described in the Final Report.
 
3.  Within thirty (30) days after the public consultation described in
Step 2, negotiations begin with the Negotiating Group consisting of
ICANN Staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group (as a whole).
 
4.  The Negotiating Group shall provide, for public comment, written
reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations.  Such
reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify
items and text agreed upon by the Negotiating Group.  The monthly report
shall identify (a) topics identified in the Final Report as High or
Medium Priority and that were not determined in Step 1 as requiring
consensus policy development; and (b) proposed amendments put forth by
any Stakeholder Group, Constituency, and/or Advisory Committee
(collectively, the “Rejected Topics and Amendments”), if any, that have
been rejected by the Negotiating Group. 
 
5.  The Negotiating Group reviews public comments received and
continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as
necessary; provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA
must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. 
 
6.  Subject to the date requirement in Step 5, ICANN Staff and the
Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of
the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.  The full final
draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be
accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both Staff
and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the
rejection of all Rejected Topics and Amendments.
 
7.  The GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA,
consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A
Supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new
RAA.  
 
8.  If the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to Board
for approval.
 
9.  If the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is
sent back to the Negotiating Group with appropriate feedback for
reconsideration.  Repeat from step 7.
 
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be
initiated by ICANN immediately.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110309/0700866e/attachment.html>