[council] RAA amendment process
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun May 1 20:13:17 UTC 2011
To get this discussion going again, my understanding is that one of
the points of contention was that the proposed methodology (both
options) called for the GNSO to approve the revised RAA (as it did
for the May 2009 version). Both contracted parties have expressed
concern that the GNSO Council should not be inserted of into what is
essentially a contractual issue between registrars and ICANN.
Although I am a strong supporter of having other ICANN stakeholders
INVOLVED in the negotiation process, I tend to agree that the GNSO
Council should not need to ratify such changes.
The source of the GNSO insertion in the process is a reference in RAA
section 5.4 that says that upon renewal, the RAA may have been
amended subject to the previsions of section 4.3. Section 4.3 talks
only about issues that are subject to Consensus Policy (ie within the
picket fence) which must be approved by a GNSO Council super-majority.
Would the last motion that was defeated be more palatable to the CPH
if instead of complete ratification of the new RAA, it required that
the GNSO Council approve solely those terms in the revised RAA which
are subject to Consensus Policy (under RAA 4.2)? That implies that no
GNSO Council approval is required if the revised RAA changes no terms
that are within the picket fence (not likely in my opinion, but
stated for clarity).
More information about the council