[council] RAA Motion

[Tim Ruiz]

I can try that, but clearly, based on the past vote, there is likely an
unresolvable difference of opinion between our houses. My "friendly"
amendment would be to change it to a simple thank you to the WG and a
note to Registrars and Staff to be sure they are aware the report has
been completed for their consideration. Is that likely to be accepted as
a friendly?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] RAA Motion
> From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
> Date: Wed, March 09, 2011 9:20 am
> To: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, Tim, but since a WG Report is presented to the Council for its discussion/action/opinion, my point is that we need to then discuss/act/opine (as appropriate). If the phrasing I chose was inappropriate, I imagine that can be cured by a friendly amendment.
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> 
> 
> To:
> , 
> 
> CC:
> 
> 
> Date: 
> 3/9/2011 10:12 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> Re: [council] RAA MotionThe Council should not assume responsibilities it has not been given. Council can express an opinion on anything I guess, but this motion is constructed as a directive.
> 
> So we can continue to make this motion and see it defeated, or we can try to find a more constructive way forward.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu 
> Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:01:01 -0500
> Cc: 
> Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion
> 
> 
> Tim, I understand your point and know it's been made before. However, as Process A received Strong Support from the WG's Sub-Team B and is classified as a recommendation in the WG Final Report, I don't see how the Council can responsibly ignore it without a fuller discussion.
>  
> Cheers
> Mary 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 
> "Tim Ruiz" 
> 
> To:
> 
> 
> CC:
> 
> 
> Date: 
> 3/9/2011 1:43 AM
> 
> Subject: 
> RE: [council] RAA MotionAs I've tried to point out before, this is a waste of time. The RAA is
> between ICANN and Registrars and only they will decide how the process
> takes place. And as was made clear to the RAA WG, Registrars will not
> engage if observers are present. All the Council should do at this point
> is thank the WG and let Registrars and Staff take from it there.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] RAA Motion
> > From: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
> > Date: Tue, March 08, 2011 7:40 pm
> > To: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Fellow Councilors:
> > 
> > I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside from the Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled in Cartagena:
> > 
> > Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to the RAA
> > 
> > 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, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report.
> > 
> > NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
> > 
> > RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN 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. Process A states:
> > �1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy.
> > 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.
> > 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress.
> > 4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback.
> > 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary.
> > 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.
> > 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form.
> > 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
> > 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.�
> > RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Mary 
> > 
> > 
> > Mary W S Wong
> > Professor of Law
> > Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> > Two White Street
> > Concord, NH 03301
> > USA
> > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> > Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110309/93c52a3a/attachment.html>