[council] Motion from the RrSG

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Tim.

As I said in my note that crossed paths with yours, I had assumed 
that clause 4.3.1 was no longer going to be used, but it is still 
there and I am delighted to make use of it here. And in retrospect, 
there is no reason to change it is I suppose. A PDP is a valid way to 
enact Policy change, but for the RAA, it is not the only way.

So sorry for raising alarms where they were not necessary.

Alan

At 15/09/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Please see section 4.3.1 of the RAA:
>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm
>
>That was constructed because at the time of the original RAA no PDP
>existed. Now that one does, and to the extent that it meets these
>minimum requirements, a PDP may result in Consensus Policy. At some
>point this section of the RAA may need to be updated, but right now,
>with the exception of the report described in part (c), we feel our
>motion would suffice to create Consensus Policy if approved by a
>supermajority of the Council and then upheld by a vote of the Board. For
>the report, the information exists but we may need to request Staff to
>assist in pulling it together.
>
>That doesn't answer your question completely, but our focus is on the
>motion immediately at hand as it pertains to establishing Consensus
>Policy. We realize that some may have concerns about process here, and
>we are certainly sensitive to that and open to considering a full PDP if
>deemed necessary.
>
>Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:29 pm
> > To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
> > Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > 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