[council] Motion from the RrSG

[Alan Greenberg]

Agreed. There are still differences of opinion but they do not kick 
in on this one, so hopefully this will go through smoothly.

Alan

At 15/09/2011 10:46 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>To be clear, the only reason the last RAA revisions were done that way
>is because Registrars agreed to it. There should be no confusion between
>Consensus Policy issues and amendments to the RAA that do not fall with
>those issues. We maintain that the RAA cannot be otherwise amended
>without Registrar approval. But I hope we don't let that argument derail
>what we are trying to do here.
>
>
>Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > Date: Thu, September 15, 2011 9:38 am
> > To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
> > Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > 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