[council] Motion from the RrSG

[Alan Greenberg]

Further to my last note, in a discussion with the PDP-WT, I was 
reminded that the RAA language allows the RAA picket fence issues to 
be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the GNSO and then Board ratification. 
That is in fact how the last RAA revision was done. But I thought 
that there had been a general belief that in the future, the PDP 
process would be used.

So I guess I over-reacted to Tim's initial note. If all parties agree 
that the RAA fast path is still valid, there is not an issue.

Alan

At 14/09/2011 07:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

>Hadn't looked at like that but you are probably correct about it 
>being within the picket fence.
>
>However, I thought that the only way that something could become a 
>Consensus Policy was by going through the formal PDP process. Cases 
>such as this are exactly why I have been pushing for a "fast-path" 
>PDP where all parties seem to be in agreement at the start, but to 
>date, there is no such process on the books.
>
>Maybe this is the case that makes us re-think that.
>
>Alan
>
>At 14/09/2011 06:20 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>Actually, while not definitive, IMO they appear to fall within 4.2.1 and
>>possibly 4.2.6 and 4.2.8 of the RAA (section 4.2 defines the so-called
>>picket fence.) So I believe we see these as becoming consensus policy as
>>defined in section 4 of the RAA and would be binding on all registrars
>>if Council approves with a supermajority and Board approves as well.
>>
>>
>>Tim
>>
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>> > Subject: Re: [council] Motion from the RrSG
>> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> > Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 3:16 pm
>> > To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>,GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> >
>> > Tim, I applaud this action on behalf of the RrSG, but do have
>> > questions regarding how the RrSG sees this being implemented.
>> >
>> > The content does not seem to be within the picket fence and so no PDP
>> > is required. But the only means I am aware of for getting such rules
>> > into the RAA is for the Board to approve them and then they kick in
>> > on the next RAA renewal - up to 5 years away. On the last RAA change,
>> > ICANN had to offer financial rewards to Registrars to get them to
>> > sign onto the revised agreement (and last I heard there were still
>> > some that have not).
>> >
>> > Do you envisage ICANN having to offer additional financial incentives
>> > in this case, (and still wait up to 5 years for all Registrars to be
>> > on board)? Or what else is proposed to actually get this implemented
>> > in a more timely manner?
>> >
>> > Also, do you envisage that this is an obligation that registrars will
>> > be obliged to pass on to their resellers?
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > At 13/09/2011 02:51 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> > >The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at
>> > >the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it
>> > >are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement
>> > >Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any
>> > >opposition from other SGs or Cs.
>> > >
>> > >Tim