[council] RAA amendment process

[Alan Greenberg]

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).

Alan